:.-'  ^1 


THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 


1 


THE  WEST   SAXON    GOSPELS 


A 

0 
0 
0 

6 
1 
9 

0 

7 
2 


ALLISON  DRAKE,  A.  M.,  Ph.D. 

university  fellow  in  anglo-saxon 
In  Columbia  College 


NEW    YORK 
1894 


THE  GIFT  OF 

WILLIAM  G.  KERCKHOFF 

TO  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

AT  LOS  ANGELES 


THE  LIBRARY  OF 
FRIEDRICH  KLUGE 


THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 
THE  WEST   SAXON    GOSPELS 


ALLISON  DRAKE,  A.  M.,  Ph.D., 

university  fellow  in  anglo-saxon 
In  Columbia  College 

LOS  /  SS 

LIl 


NEW    YORK 
1894 


Press  of  E.  Scott  Co., 

J46  West  23d  Street. 

New  York. 


Henrico   Thurstoni   Peck,  Ph.D.,   L.H.D., 

Viro  Eruditissimo  Atque  Acutissimo, 

Professori   Linguae   Latinae   Litterarumque 

In  Collegio  Columbiae  Neo-Eboracensi, 

Pietatis  Testimonium. 


159142 


PREFATORY    NOTE. 

I  wish  to  take  this  opportunity  to  express  my  sincere  thanks 
for  the  kindly  encouragement  and  valuable  suggestions  given 
me  from  the  first  by  my  instructor  in  Latin,  Professor  H.  T. 
Peck,  to  whom  alone  until  all  the  data  were  collected  I  commu- 
nicated the  nature  of  this  work.  I  am  greatly  indebted  to  my 
instructor  in  Anglo-Saxon,  Professor  A.  V.  W.  Jackson,  who,  by 
his  zealous  and  quickening  instruction  and  by  his  generous  and 
unstinted  assistance  in  revising  the  work  for  publication,  has 
contributed  much  of  whatever  merits  it  possesses.  My  instructor, 
Professor  T.  R.  Price,  of  the  Department  of  English,  has 
contributed  some  felicitous  criticisms.  These  acknowledgments, 
however,  should  not  make  anyone  but  myself  answerable  for  the 
shortcomings  of  this  paper. 

Although  my  other  instructors,  Professor  A.  C.  Merriam, 
of  the  Department  of  Greek  Archaeology  and  Epigraphy, 
Professor  E.  D.  Perry,  of  the  Department  of  Sanskrit  and 
Classical  Philology,  and  Professor  Brander  Matthews,  of  the  De- 
partment of  Literature,  have  only  indirectly  influenced  the  produc- 
tion of  this  dissertation,  I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  high 
appreciation  of  their  kindness  and  courtesy  and  the  inspiration 
of  their  instruction. 

A.  D. 

Columbia  College,  May  28,  1894. 


CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Chief  Works  Used  or  Consulted 9 

Introduction 11 

The  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels 11 

A.  The  Manuscripts 11 

B.  The  Printed  Editions 14 

The  Authorship  of  the  West  Saxon  Gospels 17 

The  Evidence  of  Composite  Authorship 22 

i.  Heofon,  Heofone 23 

ii.  Underfon,  Onfon 25 

iii.   paet  He  Wolde,  etc 27 

iv.   pseva.,  Para,  etc 31 

v.  Witodlice 34 

vi.  Hana,  Cocc 35 

vii.  Stridor  Dentium 36 

viii.  Fulgor 36 

ix.  Centurio 36 

x.  Vox  Clamantis 37 

xi.  Uppan  (On-uppan) 37 

xii.  Trado:  Belaewan,  (Ge)syllan 40 

Resume . . . , 44 


CHIEF    WORKS    USED    OR    CONSULTED. 

The  Holy  Gospels  in  Anglo-Saxon,  Northumbrian  and  Old 
Mercian  versions.  W.  W.  Skeat,  Cambridge,  1871-1887.  (This 
work  is  the  basis  of  the  present  dissertation). 

Biblia  Sacra  Juxta  Vulgatas  Exemplaria  et  Correctoria 
Romana.  A.  C.  Fillion.  Imprimatur:  +  Joseph  Arch.  Lugdun. 
Parisiis,  1887. 

The  New  Testament  in  the  Original  Greek.  B.  F.  Westcott 
and  F.  J.  A.  Hort.     New  York,  1890. 

Friedrich  Ludwig  Stamm's  Ulfilas.  Moritz  Heyne.  Achte 
Auflage.     Paderborn  und  Munster,  1885. 

The  Gospel  of  Saint  Luke  in  Anglo-Saxon.  J.  W.  Bright. 
Oxford,  1893. 

An    Anglo-Saxon     Dictionary.      A SwrSrian.      Joseph 

Bosworth;  T.  Northcote  Toller.  Oxford,  1882-1S92.  (Cited: 
B.  &  T.). 

An  Old  English  Grammar.  E.  Sievers.  Albert  S.  Cook. 
Second  Edition.     Boston,  1887.     (Cited:  Cook's  Sievers). 

The  Blickling  Homilies  of  the  Tenth  Century.  3  vols. 
R   Morris.     London,  1874-1880.      (Cited:  Blick.  Homl.). 

yElfric's  Lives  of  Saints.  2  vols.  W.  W.  Skeat.  London, 
1881,1885.     (Only  the  first  volume  used.     Cited:  Sk.  yElf.  I). 

The  Homilies  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church.  2  vols. 
Benjamin  Thorpe.     London,  1844,  1846.     (Cited:  Th.  /Elf.  I,  II). 

A(e)lfrik  de  vetere  et  novo  testamento,  Pentateuch,  Iosua, 
Buch  der  Richter  und  Hiob.  C.  W.  M.  Grein.  Cassel  and 
Goettingen,  1872.      (Cited:  Grein's  JE\{.). 

The  Oldest  English  Texts.     Henry  Sweet.     London,  1885. 

King  Alfred's  Orosius.  Part  I.  Henry  Sweet.  London, 
1883.     (Cited:  Sw.  Alf.  Oros.). 

King  Alfred's  West-Saxon  Version  of  Gregory's  Pastoral 
Care.     Henry  Sweet.     London,  1871.      (Cited:  Sw.  Alf.  C.  P.). 

Sancti  Gregorii  Papas  I,  Cognomento  Magni,  Opera  Omnia. 
Tomus  Tertius.  Patrologias  Latinge  Tomus  lxxvii.  J--P. 
Migne.     Parisiis,  1862. 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE  ANGLO-SAXON  GOSPELS. 

After  careful  investigation  and  consideration,  Professor 
Skeat  is  inclined  to  the  belief  that  West  Saxon  literature  never 
possessed  more  than  one  version  of  the  Gospels,  and  that  that 
was  made  in  the  latter  half  of  the  tenth  century  (cf.  Skeat's 
Pref.  to  Jn.,  p.  vii;  Pref.  to  Lk.,  p.  xi).  Besides  this  West  Saxon 
version,  there  are  also  a  Northumbrian  gloss  of  all  the  Gospels,  a 
modified  form  of  that  gloss  for  Mark,  Luke  and  John,  and  an  Old 
Mercian  version  of  Matthew  (cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Jn.,pp.  xii,  xiii  ; 
Pref.  to  Mt.,  p.  vii). 

a.     The  Manuscripts. 

The  following  remarks  about  the  MSS.  and  the  printed  edi- 
tions of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels,  down  to  printed  edition  no. 
IX,  have  been  copied  from  Professor  Skeat's  Prefaces  to  the 
Gospels,  often  verbatim  ;  but  a  verbatim  transcript  has  not 
always  been  suitable  for  use  in  this  brief  paper.  I  have  pre- 
ferred to  use  the  term  West  Saxon  Gospels  instead  of  the  less 
definite  term  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels,  when  only  the  West  Saxon 
version  has  had  to  be  designated.  Of  course,  in  quoting  the  exact 
title  of  a  printed  edition,  the  substitution  has  not  been  made. 

There  have  come  down  to  us  only  the  following  eight  MSS. 
of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels.  Each  of  the  first  six  contains  the 
West  Saxon  version  in  whole  or  in  part. 

I.— (Cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Mk.,  p.  v).  The  Corpus  MS.— MS. 
no.  CXL  (formerly  S.  4)  in  the  Library  of  Corpus  Christi  Col- 
lege, Cambridge.  Its  contents  are  the  four  Gospels  in  West 
Saxon,  and  some  other  documents,  [notably]  a  homily,  inserted 
between  Mark  and  Luke.  The  homily  begins — M(en)  \>  a 
l(eofestan).     Her     onginS     t>  ( se  t )     halie    g(e)writ 


12  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

\,  e  co(m)  fra(m)  heofenan  into  hierusale(m).  It 
ends— a  nd  se  {>  e  underfehts  witigan  on  \>ses 
witigan  naman  he  underfehs  >  as  s  witigan  mede. 
At  the  end  of  Matthew  is  this  note  :  Ego  yElfricus 
scripsi  nunc  librum  in  Monasterio  Ba-g>onio  et  dedi  Brihtwoldo 
preposito.  ^Elfric  did  hot  write  the  whole  of  the  Gospels;  for  a 
different  hand  wrote  from  the  word  gorst-beam  (Mk.  12:  26)  to  he 
(Mk.  12:  3S),  which  makes  a  page  of  the  MS. 

II.— (Cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Mk.,  pp.vi,  vii).  The  Cambridge  MS. 
— MS.  Ii.  2  11,  in  the  Cambridge  University  Library.  In  1566  it 
became  the  property  of  Matthew  Parker,  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, who  gave  it  in  1574  to  the  University  of  Cambridge. 

Ill  — (Cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Mk.,  p.  vii).  The  Bodley  MS.— 
MS.  Bodley  NE.  F.  3.15,  now  Bodley  441.  Several  leaves  of  the 
original  MS.  were  lost,  but  all  but  one  of  them  have  since  been 
"restored."  The  "restored"  portions  are  Mk.  1: 1  to 4:  37;  Mk.  16: 
14  to  the  end  of  Mark;  Lk.  24:  51  to  the  end  of  the  Gospel  (but 
cf.  Skeat's  note  ad  loc);  and  Jn.  20:  9  nearly  to  the  end  (cf. 
Skeat's  note  ad  loc). 

IV.— (Cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Mk.,  p.  viii).  The  Cotton  MS.— 
MS.  Cotton  Otho  C.  1,  in  the  British  Museum.  Before  the  great 
fire  of  1 73 1,  this  MS.  was  defective  only  as  far  as  Mt.  27:  6;  but 
after  the  fire  it  was  long  thought  to  be  only  a  charred  mass.  Sir 
Frederic  Madden  uniquely  mounted  even  the  smallest  fragments 
and  thus  rendered  them  accessible  to  the  public.  The  date  of 
the  Corpus,  Bodley,  and  Cotton  MSS.  is  supposed  to  belong  to 
the  last  decade  of  the  tenth  century.  The  Cambridge  MS.  is 
thought  to  be  of  later  date,  probably  about  1050. 

V.— (Cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Mk.,  p.  x).  The  Hatton  MS.— This 
MS.,  formerly  marked  Hatton  65,  is  now  marked  Hatton  38,  and 
is  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford.  It  once  belonged  to  Rev. 
John  Parker,  son  to  the  Archbishop.  Mr.  Parker  "  restored  "  a 
missing  leaf  (Luke  16).  The  MS.  was  written  about  the  time 
of  Henry  II.  It  is  interesting  as  showing  how  the  language 
began  to  lose  strength  in  its  inflectional  forms. 

VI.— (Cf.  id.,  ib.).  The  Royal  MS.— This  MS.  is  now  in  the 
Royal  Library  at  the  British    Museum,  where  its  class  mark  is 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  13 

Bibl.  Reg.  i  A.  xiv.  The  MS.  was  probably  written  in  the  time 
of  Stephen.  The  general  agreement  of  the  Hatton  MS.  with  it 
is  very  close,  excepting  that  the  Royal  MS.  preserves  more 
archaic  forms.  The  Hatton  MS.  was  copied  from  it.  The  last 
seven  verses  of  Mark  in  the  Royal  MS.  are  in  the  handwriting  of 
the  Hatton  scribe,  which  proves  that  the  scribe  of  the  Hatton 
MS.  had  access  to  some  other  MS.  besides  the  Royal.  The 
Royal  MS.  was  copied  from  the  Bodley  (cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Lk., 
p.  viii).  The  pedigree  of  these  six  MSS.  may  be  indicated  thus 
(cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Jn.,  p.  vii): 

Original  MS.  (now  lost). 


Corpus  MS.  i4o=Bodley  MS.  44i=Otho  C.  i.         Cambridge  MS. 

Royal  MS. 

I 
Hatton  MS. 

VII.— (Cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Mk.,  p.  xi).  The  Lindisfarne 
MS. — This  MS.  is  also  known  as  the  Durham  Book.  It  is  now 
one  of  the  Cotton  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum,  its  class  mark 
being  Nero  D.  4.  It  contains  the  four  Gospels  in  Latin,  written 
in  double  columns,  with  an  interlinear  Northumbrian  gloss.  The 
Latin  was  written  by  Eadfrith  in  the  island  of  Lindisfarne  about 
A.  D.  700.  The  gloss  was  written  probably  in  the  latter  half  of 
the  tenth  century,  and  exhibits  two  handwritings  and  two  kinds 
of  ink,  one  of  the  latter  being  red.  The  red  ink  and  the  second 
handwriting  begin  near  the  end  of  John  5:  10.  This  portion 
of  the  gloss  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  by  the  glossator 
himself,  Aldred,  a  priest;  the  previous  portion  having  been  made 
under  his  superintendence  (cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Jn.,  pp.  viii,  ff.). 

VIII .— (Cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Mk.,  pp.  xii,  xiii).  The  Rush- 
worth  MS. — This  MS.  is  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford,  and 
is  marked  Auct.  D.  ii.  19.  The  Latin  is  in  single  column  and  of 
uncertain  date.  The  Anglo-Saxon  of  Matthew  is  a  version  in 
the  Old  Mercian  dialect  by  Farman,  a  priest  of  Harewood,  who 
is  shown  by  the  handwriting  to  have  glossed  the  Mark  as  far  as 


14  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

hleonadun  in  Mk.  2;  15,  and  to  have  translated  John  18:  1-3. 
The  remaining  portion  of  the  gloss  was  made  by  Owun,  another 
inmate  of  Harewood.  Dr.  Murray  observes  that  "the  two  portions 
of  the  gloss  are  contemporary,  and  owe  their  differences 
[dialectic  ?]  to  the  different  nativity  of  their  writers"  (cf.  Skeat's 
Pref.  to  Jn.,  pp.  xii,  ff.).  Owun  seldom  uses  the  thorn  letter  ( j. ), 
but  in  Jn.  18:  1-3,  written  by  Farman,  that  letter  appears  seven- 
teen times.  The  date  of  the  gloss  is  supposed  to  belong  to 
the  latter  half  of  the  tenth  century. 

b.     The  Printed  Editions. 

(Cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  toMk.,  pp.  xiv,  ff.). 

I. — The  first  edition  of  the  West  Saxon  Gospels  was  printed 
by  John  Day  in  15 71,  at  the  suggestion  of  Archbishop  Parker. 
It  was  probably  based  on  the  Bodley  MS.,  with  a  few  corrections 
from  the  Cambridge  MS. 

II. — An  edition  of  the  Gothic  and  the  West  Saxon  Gospels 
in  parallel  columns  was  printed  by  Junius  and  Marshall  in  1665. 
The  basis  of  this  edition  is  the  preceding  edition;  but  Junius 
and  Marshall  made  use  of  the  Bodley,  Cambridge,  Corpus,  Hatton 
and  Rushworth  MSS. 

III. — Mr.  Thorpe,  in  1842,  revised  the  edition  made  by 
Junius  and  Marshall,  though  he  does  not  say  that  his  work  is 
not  an  original  edition. 

IV. — Dr.  Bosworth  printed  an  edition  of  "  The  Gothic  and 
Anglo-Saxon  Gospels,  in  parallel  columns,  with  the  versions  of 
Wicliffe  and  Tyndale,"  in  8vo;  London,  1865.  It  was  based  on 
the  Corpus  MS.,  and  gives  the  text  of  that  MS.  with  great 
exactness. 

V. — An  edition  of  the  Northumbrian  glosses  of  the  Gospels 
in  the  Lindisfarne  MS.  was  printed  at  Giitersloh,  in  1857,  by 
Karl  Wilhelm  Bouterwek.  This  volume  contains  an  excellent 
glossary. 

VI. — In  1858,  the  same  editor,  Herr  Bouterwek,  printed  a 
volume  entitled  "  Screadunga,"  which  contains,  among  other 
things,  the  Rushworth  Latin  text  and  gloss  of  Mark. 

VII. — The  Gospels  (both  the  Latin  and  the  Anglo-Saxon) 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  15 

of  the  Lindisfarne  and  Rushworth  MSS.  were  edited  for  the 
Surtees  Societ)*,  in  1854-1865,  by  Rev.  J.  Stevenson  and  Mr.  G. 
Waring. 

VIII.  — (Cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Mk.,  p.  i).  Mr.  Kemble  planned 
and  began  an  edition  of  the  Gospels  in  the  West  Saxon,  North- 
umbrian and  Old  Mercian  versions,  synoptically  arranged,  with 
collations  of  all  the  MSS.  Mr.  Kemble  lived  to  complete  only  a 
little  more  than  the  first  twenty-four  chapters  of  Matthew. 
Mr.  Hardwick  completed  the  Matthew,  and  the  volume  appeared 
in   1858. 

IX. — "The  Holy  Gospels  in  Anglo-Saxon,  Northumbrian, 
and  Old  Mercian  versions,  synoptically  arranged,  with  collations 
exhibiting  all  the  readings  of  all  the  MSS.;  together  with  the 
early  Latin  version  as  contained  in  the  Lindisfarne  MS.,  collated 
with  the  Latin  version  of  the  Rushworth  MS.  Edited  for  the 
Syndics  of  the  University  Press,  by  the  Rev.  Walter  W.  Skeat, 
Litt.  D.,  LL.D.  Edin.,  M.A.  Oxon.,  Elrington  and  Bosworth 
Professor  of  Anglo-Saxon,  and  Fellow  of  Christ's  College, 
Cambridge.  Cambridge  :  At  the  University  Press,  1871-1887." 
This  is  a  truly  great  work,  and  the  benefits  that  will  flow  from 
it  to  Anglo-Saxon  scholarship  are  incalculable.  The  more  one 
turns  the  pages  of  this  great  volume,  the  deeper  will  grow  his 
respect  for  its  merits,  and  for  the  editor,  whose  patience,  fidelity, 
accuracy,  and  critical  ability  can  be  duly  proclaimed  only  by  the 
volume  itself. 

X. — In  this  country,  in  187 1,  the  West  Saxon  Gospel  of  John 
with  a  glossary  appeared  in  a  work  entitled  "  Hand-Book  of 
Anglo-Saxon  and  Early  English,  by  Hiram  Corson,  M.A."  This 
has  been  a  serviceable  pioneer  in  the  advancement  of  the  study 
of  Anglo-Saxon  in  America,  and  deserves  commendation  as 
such. 

XI. — Professor  James  W.  Bright,  of  the  Johns  Hopkins 
University,  in  1893,  edited  from  the  manuscripts  a  school 
edition  of  the  West  Saxon  Gospel  of  Luke,  with  an  introduc- 
tion, notes,  and  a  glossary.  The  little  volume  has  many  merits, 
one  being  that  it  is  the  forerunner  of  a  "  critical  edition  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  Gospels,"  to  which  we  shall  look  forward  with 
interest. 


l6  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Before  proceeding  to  the  consideration  of  authorship,  Pro- 
fessor Skeat's  observation  regarding  the  source  of  the  restora- 
tion of  the  last  seven  verses  of  Mark  in  the  Royal  MS.  is  worthy 
of  attention.  Professor  Skeat  infers  that  "  the  scribe  of  the 
Hatton  MS.  had  access  to  some  other  MS.  besides  the  Royal." 
An  examination  of  the  text  of  the  restored  verses  shows  that  the 
"other  MS."  to  which  the  scribe  had  access  could  not  well  have 
been  cognate  with  any  MS.  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels  which  we 
possess.  But  perhaps  Professor  Skeat  means  a  Latin  MS. ;  for  it  is 
possible  that  the  Hatton  scribe  himself  translated  the  passage 
from  the  Latin.  Since  making  this  conjecture  it  has  been  grati- 
fying to  find  that  Professor  Bright  entertains  the  same  opinion 
regarding  the  possible  translation;  indeed,  he  seems  to  have  defin- 
itely determined  the  truth  of  it;  for,  in  speaking  of  the  lacmicB 
filled  by  this  restoration  and  others,  he  states  unqualifiedly  that 
the  Hatton  scribe  "supplied  them  in  his  own  hand  and  by  his 
own  translation  from  the  Latin  "  (cf.  Bright's  Luke,  p.  xvi). 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 
THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS 


The  investigation  of  this  subject,  it  may  be  well  to  state  at 
once,  was  not  premeditated,  but  was  prompted  by  the  dis- 
covery of  certain  suggestively  distinguishing  features  of  the 
West  Saxon  Gospels,  which  chanced  to  be  noted  while  the  writer 
was  engaged  in  preparing  for  publication  an  edition  of  the  West 
Saxon  Gospel  of  Mark.  The  fact  that  many  distinguished  schol- 
ars and  critics  had  for  above  three  hundred  years  so  thoroughly 
scrutinized  all  the  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels,  tended  at  first  to  de- 
preciate the  significance  of  certain  facts  which,  nevertheless, 
ultimately  induced  this  inquiry  into  the  authorship  of  the  West 
Saxon  Gospels.  Professor  Bright's  remark  that  "  There  is  no  clue 
to  the  authorship  of  this  version  "  (cf.  Bright's  Luke,  p.  xii),  gave 
zest  to  the  search  ;  but  the  warning  contained  in  Professor 
Skeat's  general  statement  that  "  Large  theories  are  constantly 
being  built  up,  like  an  inverted  cone,  upon  very  slender  bases  " 
(cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Jn.,  p.  xi),  chilled  the  first  ardor  of  enthusi- 
asm. 

For  the  present  it  has  been  found  impossible  to  prosecute 
the  investigation  in  certain  desirable  lines  on  account  of  the 
lack  of  trustworthy  and  time-saving  aids  beyond  a  few  good 
texts.  Let  me  not  seem,  however,  to  depreciate  unduly  the 
zealous  labors  of  great  scholars  and  their  valued  contributions 
to  the  science  of  Anglo-Saxon  philology.  There  are  most 
estimable  works  in  this  department  of  learning,  but  the  science 
is  still  in  its  infancy,  and  its  critical  apparatus  must  not  be 
judged  by  the  same  standards  that  we  are  accustomed  to  apply 
in  testing  the  merit  of  contributions  to  classical  philology  ;  and 
yet,  while  we  thus  excuse  the  weakness  of  a  science  by  pleading 
its  tender  age,  the  lack  of  strength  is  none  the  less  felt.  Let 
this  be  illustrated  by  a  particular   example.     No  work  is  more 


l8  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

able  to  bear  up  under  just  criticism  than  Sievers's  Grammar  of 
Old  English,  so  ably  translated  and  edited  by  our  fellow 
countryman,  Professor  Albert  S.  Cook,  of  Yale  University.  This 
work  is  justly  held  in  the  highest  esteem  by  all  Anglo-Saxon 
scholars  ;  and  yet,  in  the  present  investigation,  it  has  happened 
to  fail  at  the  point  where  most  needed,  namely,  dialectic  forms. 
In  proof  of  this,  one  citation  will  suffice.  In  Cook's  Sievers, 
paragraph  390,  Note  2,  it  is  stated:  "Instead  of  ndm,  ndmon 
LWS.  also  has  nam,  ndmon."  Now,  the  fact  is  that  {-)nam, 
(-)namon  is  doubly  more  frequent  than  (-)nom,  {-)nomon  in 
the  very  works  which  in  Cook's  Sievers  (pp.  244,  245)  are  said 
to  "  take  precedence  of  all  others  .  .  .  among  the  ancient  speci- 
mens of  West  Saxon.",  Thus  (-)nam,  (-)namon  is  found  in  Sw. 
Alf.  C.  P.,  pp.  161:  7;  259:  8;  415:  17;  425:  3;  and  in  Sw.  Alf. 
Oros.,  pp.  34:  2;  42:  10  ;  44:  27,  32;  46:  7;  64:  10;  66:  21;  86:  30 
(see  text);  88:7194:4,7;  106:22;  154:15;  i58-' 4 ;  200:8; 
210:  9;  228:  25;  while  {-)nom,  (-)nomon  occurs  in  Sw.  Alf. 
C.  P.,  p.  37:  5;  and  in  Sw.  Alf.  Oros.,  pp.  42:  29;  50:  7; 
148:  18;  166:  27;  218:  30;  230:  28;  252:  10;  280:  26,  27.  It  is 
probable  that  occurrences  of  each  of  these  forms  have  been  over- 
looked in  making  this  record,  yet  the  record  has  been  impartially 
made. 

But  it  has  been  possible  to  arrive  at  certain  important  con- 
clusions in  this  inquiry  into  the  authorship  of  the  West  Saxon 
Gospels  by  the  study  of  good  texts  alone.  These  conclusions  are 
(mainly),  that  the  authorship  is  at  least  dual,  and  probably  triple; 
more  explicitly,  that  the  Matthew  is  by  one  translator,  the  Mark 
and  Luke  by  another,  and  the  John  by  a  third  (unless  possibly 
by  the  translator  of  the  Matthew);  that  the  translator  of  the 
Matthew  and  the  translator  of  the  John  were  probably  locally 
akin,  possibly  translating  conjointly;  and  that  the  translator  of 
the  Mark  and  Luke  was  probably  distant  from  the  locality 
where  the  Matthew  and  the  John  were  translated,  though  Dr. 
Murray  has  pointed  out  that  inmates  of  the  same  monastery 
may  exhibit  great  linguistic  differences  byreason  of  their"different 
nativity." 

Before  presenting  the  evidence  on  which  these  conclusions 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  19 

have  been  based,  attention  should  be  called  to  the  kinds  of  data 
to  be  used  or  refused  in  an  inquiry  like  the  present. 

First  of  all,  no  great  importance  should  be  attached  in 
general  to  those  features  of  the  text  that  were  possibly  intro- 
duced by  scribes.  We  have  seen  that  the  number  of  scribes  en- 
gaged in  writing  a  single  MS.  is  mostly  determinable  by  the 
handwritings  ;  and  that  in  the  copies  made  from  this,  the  evi- 
dence of  its  composite  workmanship  vanishes.  We  do  not  know, 
for  example,  whether  one  or  a  dozen  scribes  wrote  the  MS.  from 
which  our  oldest  MSS.  of  the  West  Saxon  Gospels  are  supposed 
to  have  been  copied.  We  have  seen,  furthermore,  that  scribes 
often  silently  copy  "restorations"  made  by  their  predecessors, and 
that  they  themselves  often  make  "restorations"  without  taking  the 
trouble  to  notify  their  readers.  We  have  seen  also  that  in  copy- 
ing a  MS.,  inmates  of  the  same  monastery  may  exhibit  very 
noticeable  linguistic  differences  by  reason  of  their  "  different  na- 
tivity." In  the  case  of  the  Bodley,  Royal,  and  Hatton  MSSV 
which  are  transcriptions  one  of  another  in  the  order  named,  we 
have  seen  that  a  scribe  may  copy  a  text  more  or  less  conform- 
ably to  the  language  of  his  time  (cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Lk.,  p.  viii). 
Imagine,  then,  what  linguistic  variations  a  single  text  may  ex- 
hibit by  reason  of  cooperative  transcription,  restorations,  con- 
formations, etc.* 

Again,  in  collecting  evidence  as  to  authorship,  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  a  translator,  if  a  novice,  may  be  expected  to 
exhibit  different  grades  of  workmanship  ;  consequently  his  first 
efforts  should  not  be  cited  to  prove  his  last  efforts  spurious. 
For  example,    when    the  translation  of    the    Lord's    Prayer    in 


*The  hints  thus  accidentally  given  by  the  MSS.  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels 
are  of  manifold  importance.  They  teach  especially  that  those  who  pass  judg- 
ment as  to  the  date  of  a  MS.  should  render  a  decision  only  after  the  most  careful 
and  exhaustive  investigation.  It  would  be  well,  too,  if  the  data  on  which  such 
decisions  are  based,  were  fully  tabulated  for  the  benefit  of  all  concerned.  This  is  a 
most  vital  matter  ;  for  when  the  date  of  a  MS.  is  supposed  to  be  correctly  settled, 
its  dialectal  forms,  etc.,  are  used  in  determining  the  dates  of  other  MSS. 
Grammars  and  dictionaries  are  then  founded  upon  these,  and  thus  not  infre- 
quently "  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump." 


20  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Matthew  is  contrasted  with  that  in  Luke  and  is  seen  to  be 
mechanical,  little  can  be  inferred  save  that,  as  the  translator  ad- 
vances, he  frees  himself  from  the  improper  restraints  of  the 
original  text.* 

We  need  not  be  surprised,  then,  that  the  translation  of  the 
latter  half  of  the  Matthew  differs  in  many  respects  from  that 
of  the  first  half,  which  is  particularly  noticeable  in  the  case  of 
transitional  particles.  We  may  note  also  that  the  Latin  scriba  is 
translated  by  writere  the  first  two  times  (Mt.  2:4;  5:  20);  there- 
after by  bocere.  The  Latin pharisaei is  translated  by  sundorhalgan 
until  the  fifteenth  chapter  is  reached  ;  thereafter  in  Matthew  it 
is  directly  transferred,  except  in  Mt.  27:  62.  The  Latin  crux  in 
the  sense  of  burden  is  translated  by  cwylming  in  Mt.  10  :  38  ; 
Mk.  8:  34;  Lk.  9:  23;  14:  27;  but  by  rod  in  Mt.  16:  24,  which  is 
probably  a  mere  slip.  B.  &  T.  does  not  note  the  use  of  rod  in 
this  sense. 

Again,  the  use  of  similar  expressions  in  the  translation  of 
parallel  passages  may  often  be  expected  from  translators  of  the 
Gospels  even  when  the  translators  are  remote  from  each  other 
in  time  and  place  of  translation.  This  is  possible  chiefly  by 
reason  of  two  things,  the  simplicity  of  the  thought  and  the 
translators'  probable  previous  familiarity  in  their  vernacular  with 
the  main  stories  and  memorable  sayings  of  the  Gospels,  even 
though  that  vernacular  translation  were  never  committed  to 
writing.  The  latter  fact  may  be  well  illustrated  by  the  West 
Saxon  translation  of  benedi\c\tus  qui  uenturus  est,  etc.    (Mt.  21:  9): 


*The  West  Saxon  translation  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  Matthew  begins  and 
ends  uniquely — F  seder  u  re  . ..  so  Si  ice.  Freder  ure  is  paralleled  in  form 
byFseder  minin  /Elfric's  half  poetical ' '  Lives  of  Saints "  (Sk.  /Elf .  I,  p.  402 : 
6).  As  to  the  ending,  it  may  be  said  that  the  use  of  A  men  to  mark  devotional 
termination  occurs  throughout  the  Blickling  Homilies  and  the  homilies  of  /Elfric. 
(See  especially  Th.  /Elf.  I,  p.  76:  8,  25).  /Elfric  has  left  us  a  collection  of  eleven 
prayers  in  Anglo-Saxon  (Th.  .-Elf.  II,  pp.  596,  ft".).  The  first  three  terminate 
with  Sy  hit  swa;  the  remaining  eight  with  Amen.  Surely,  Amen  thus  used 
was  as  good  Anglo-Saxon  as  it  was  good  Greek  or  good  Latin.  The  translator 
of  the  West  Saxon  Matthew  had,  however,  possibly  as  much  right  to  translate 
the  word  by  soft  lice  as /Elfric  had  by  Sy  hit  swa. 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  21 

Sygebletsod  s  e  p  e  com,  etc.  This  faulty  translation  is  doubt- 
less due  to  the  fact  that  the  tense  of  venit,  the  usual  form  of  the 
verb  in  this  saying,  may  have  been  misunderstood  by  the  Anglo- 
Saxons;  for  they  seem  regularly  to  have  rendered  it  by  com  (see 
Mt.  23:  39  (Rush,  cwome);  Mk.  u:  9;  Lk.  13:  35;  19:  38;  Jn-  I2: 
13;  Th.  MM.  I,  pp.  60:  9;  214:  17).  But  perhaps  the  best  way  to 
show  that  different  translators  may  often  independently  make 
use  of  the  same  words  and  phrases  in  translating  the  same 
passage  of  the  Gospels  is  to  compare  passages  in  the  West 
Saxon  version  with  translations  by  Alfred,  whom  no  one  seems 
ever  to  have  suspected  of  being  the  author  of  that  version. 
There  are  numerous  examples,  but  the  following  best  illustrate 
the  point: 

Alfred  (Sw.  C.  P.,  p.  43:  19,  20):  Fara«  (and)  cy^as  minum 
broSrum   «aet  hie  cumen  to  Galileum;    Saer  hie  me  geseos. 

Cp.  MS.,  Mt.  28:  10:  fara-s  (and)  cyhis  minum  gebroPrum 
p(aet)  hig  faron  on  galileam  paer  hig  geseop  me. 

Alfred  (Sw.  C.  P.,  p.  329:  6,  7):  GewitaS  fro(m)  me, 
awiergde,  on  ece  fyr,  Saet  wses  gegearwod  diofle  (and)  his  englum. 

Cp.  MS.,  Mt.  25:  41:  GewitaS  awyrgyde  tram  me  on  p(ast) 
ece  fyr.   pe  ys  deofle  (and)  hys  englum  gegearwud. 

Alfred  (Sw.  C.  P.,  p.  218:  24):  On  eo[w]rum  geSylde  ge 
gehealdas  eowra  saula. 

Cp.  MS.,  Lk.  21:  19:  On  eowru(m)  gepylde  ge  gehealdaS 
eowre  sawla. 

The  work  of  Alfred's  here  drawn  from  had  such  a  wide  cir- 
culation that  it  may  have  affected  the  diction  of  our  West  Saxon 
version  of  the  Gospels  The  Blickling  Homilies  probably  exer- 
cised little  or  no  effect;  and  yet  the  similarity  in  the  language  of 
parallel  passages  is  no  less. 

Blick.  Homl.,  p.  169:  8-10:  Ge  nseddrena  cynn,  hwylc 
seteowde  eow  to  fleonne  fram  Son  toweardan  Codes  erre  ? 

Cp.  MS.,  Mt.  3:  7:  La  nseddrena  cyn.  hwa  geswutelode 
eow  to  fleonne  fra(m)  Pan  toweardan  yrre:  progenies  uiperarum 
quis  demonstrauit  uobis   fugere    a  futura  ira  ? 

Cp.  MS.,  Lk.  3:7:  eala  nseddrena  cynn  hwa  aet-ywde  eow 
p(aet)  ge  fleon  fra(m)  pam  towerdan  yrre:  genimina  uiperaru(m) 
quis  ostendit  uobis  fugire  a  uentura  ira  ? 


22  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

From  these  comparisons  it  will  be  manifest  that  likeness 
in  the  translations  of  an  ordinary  passage  of  the  Gospels  does 
not  necessarily  indicate  a  common  translator. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  single  translator  may  make  different 
renderings  of  the  same  passage      ^Elfric  well  illustrates  this: 

Grein's  AL\{.,  Gen.  3:  5:  Ac  god  vat  so'Slice,  }>at  eovre  eagan 
beo-5  geopenode  on  sva  hvdcum  dage,  sva  ge  eta$  of  |?am  treove, 
and  ge  beds  K>nne  englum  gelice  vitende  seg'Ser  ge  god  ge  yfel. 

Th.  ALU.  I,  p.  18:  2,  ff.:  ac  God  wat  genoh  geare,  gif  ge  of 
■Sam  treowe  geetaS,  j>onne  beoS  eowere  eagan  geopenode,  and  ge 
magon  geseon  and  tocnawan  aeg'Ser  ge  god  ge  yfel,  and  ge  beos 
englum  gelice. 

From  all  these  considerations,  it  will  be  apparent  that  evi- 
dence as  to  authorship  should  be  mainly  founded,  not  upon 
features  of  the  text  that  may  be  due  to  the  nativity  or  caprice 
of  scribes,  to  restorations  and  conformations,  to  the  simplicity 
of  the  thought,  or  to  the  influence  of  previous  translations;  but 
upon  characteristics, — characteristics  which  are  deep-seated,  and 
which  run  through  the  whole  body  of  the  text  or  the  major  por- 
tion of  it.  Most  of  the  data  presented  as  evidence  in  this  paper 
will  be  seen  individually  to  fulfill  these  requirements  ;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  a  few  of  the  data  must  be  taken  conjointly  in 
order  to  embrace  the  whole  text  and  be  of  much  significance. 


THE   EVIDENCE   OF    COMPOSITE   AUTHORSHIP. 

Although  it  is  unnecessary  to  go  beyond  the  text  of  the 
West  Saxon  version  of  the  Gospels  to  prove  indisputably  its 
composite  authorship,  yet  it  has  seemed  advisable  to  cite  for 
comparison  works  whose  authorship  is  unquestionably  single. 
Accordingly,  where  it  has  been  found  practicable  and  worth  the 
labor  involved,  comparison  of  the  Gospels  in  certain  respects 
has  been  made  with  Alfred's  Orosius  and  Cura  Pastoralis,  with 
the  Blickling  Homilies,  with  ^Elfric's  Homilies,  and  the  first  half 
of  his  Lives  of  Saints,  and  with  the  portion  of  ^lfric's  works 
edited  by  Grein.     The  testimony  of  the  Northumbrian  and  Old 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  23 

Mercian  Gospels  is  sometimes  to  the  point;  and  the  fragments 
of  the  Gothic  Gospels  have  been  thought  worthy  of  citation  in 
one  or  two  instances.  It  should  be  remarked  that  Morris's 
glossary  to  the  Blickling  Homilies  though  probably  accurate  is 
incomplete.  For  example,  the  occurrence  of  heofenum  on 
p.  125:  29,  and  of  heofenas  on  p.  139:  2,  we  do  not  find  recorded 
in  the  glossary.  Statements  in  this  paper  as  to  the  non- 
occurrence of  words  in  the  Blickling  Homilies  are  based  upon 
personal  reading,  and  not  upon  that  glossary.  The  glossary, 
however,  has  been  used  as  a  check. 

We  shall  now  present  the  data  of  evidence  as  to  the  com- 
posite authorship  of  the  West  Saxon  version  of  the  Gospels,  not 
in  the  order  of  discovery,  but  in  the  order  which  for  various 
reasons  seems  best  suited  to  the  case.  Peculiarities  regarding 
the  word  heofon,  however,  were  among  the  first  to  attract  atten- 
tion, and  will  be  the  first  presented. 

i.       HEOFON,      HEOFONE. 

This  word  has  proved  doubly  useful  in  the  present  inquiry. 
It  has  been  found  peculiar  in  one  respect  in  Matthew,  and  in 
another  respect  in  John,  thus  dividing  the  Gospels  into  three 
distinct  groups:  Matthew — Mark  and  Luke — John.  The  pecu- 
liarity in  Matthew  is  the  occurrence  of  both  the  weak  and  the 
strong  forms.  There  are  18  instances  of  the  weak  forms  of 
heofon  scattered  throughout  this  Gospel,  while  neither  in  Mark 
and  Luke  nor  in  John  is  a  single  occurrence  of  a  weak  form  to 
be  found.* 

If  we  turn  to  the  Orosius  and  the  Cura  Pastoralis,  we  find 
no  weak  form  of  heofon.  The  word  itself,  however,  is  in  these 
works  infrequently  met  with.  In  the  Blickling  Homilies  the 
strong  forms  are  of  very  frequent  occurrence,  while  no  instance 
of  a  weak  form  is  to  be  noted.  yElfric  uses  both  the  strong  and 
the  weak  forms  side  by  side,  and  everywhere  so  frequently  that 
citations  need  not  be  made. 


*It  should  be  observed  that  seo  heofon  occurs  in  Lk.  4:  25;  but  "  In  L  W  S. 
seo  is  used  for  se"  (Cook's  Sievers,  par.  337,  Note  2).  In  the  Blickling  Homilies, 
seo  heofon  and  se  heofon   occur  on  the  same  page  (p.  93:  4,  22). 


24 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 


John  is  separated  from  the  other  Gospels  by  the  fact  that  in 
this  Gospel  heofon  is  at  variance  with  the  Latin  original  as  to 
number,  15  out  of  19  times.  In  the  other  Gospels  great  care 
was  apparently  taken  to  have  the  number  of  heofon  in  agreement 
with  the  number  of  caelum;  and  only  11  out  of  133  occurrences 
show  disagreement.  In  the  following  list  of  the  occurrences  of 
heofon  or  caelum,  w  denotes  weak;  »p  or  ps  means  singular  for 
plural  or  vice  versa;  and  [  ]  or  (  )  means  that  the  word  caelum  or 
heofon  is  wanting  : 

Singular 


Matthew 

Mark 

and  Luke 

John 

5: 18,  34 

4: 

32 

2: 15 

3=  31 

6:  20W,  26W 

6: 

41 

3:  21,   22 

6:  31.  33 

8:  20 w 

7: 

34 

4:  25 

12:  28 

11:  23,  25 

8: 

11 

8:5 

13:  32W 

11: 

3°i 

31 

9:  16,  54,  58 

14:  19 

13: 

25, 

27 

10:  15,  18,  21 

16:  1,  2,  (3),  3 

13: 

3i, 

32 

11:  [2],  [2] 

21:  25 

14: 

62 

11:  13,  16 

22:  30 

13:  19 

23:  22W 

15:  7,  21 

24:  29W,  29  sp, 

w 

16:  17 

24:  30W,  30W,  ; 

J5W 

17:  24,  24,  29 

26:  64 

18:  13,  22 

2S:  2W,  i8\v 

20:  4,  5 
21:  11,  26sp 
21:  33 
22:  43 
24:  Si 
6:  [35] 
12:56 

Plural 


Matthew 

Mark  and  Luke 

3:  2,  16,  17 

1:  10,  11,  [15]  6:  23P8 

4: 17 

IO:  [14],  2ipS    IO:   20 

5:  3,  10W,  12 

Ii:   25,    (26)            12:    33 

5:  16,  19W,  19W 

12:  25               15:  i8ps 

5:  20W,  45 

13:  25                 iy:  3Sps 

6:  1,  9,  iops 

16:  I9PS 

7:  11,  21,  21,  21 

4:  [30] 

8:  11 

10:  7.  32,  33 

11:  11,  12 

12:  50W 

13:  11,  24,  31,  33,  44 

I3:  45,  47,  52W 

16:  17,  19,  19,  19 

18:  1,  3,  4,  (10),  (10) 

18:  14,  i8ps,  i8ps,  19,  23 

19:    12,    14,   2T,  (23),   24 

20:  1;  21:  25PS 

22:  2;  23:  9,  13 

24:  31,  (36) 

25:  1 

JOHN 

1:  32PS,  51PS 
3:  13PS,  13PS 

3:    I3pS,   27p» 

6:  32ps,  32P8 
6:  38ps,  4ip» 
6:  42PS,  sops 
6:  5ip«,  58p*> 
17:    ips 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  25 

These  irregularities  might  be  lamely  explained  by  supposing 
interruptions  and  long  delays  in  the  work  of  translating;  but  as 
new  data  are  introduced,  this  supposition  will  be  seen  to  be  wholly 
worthless.  Moreover,  in  this  particular  case,  it  may  be  said  that 
the  weak  form  of  heofon  should  be  least  expected  to  be  found 
in  Matthew,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  the  work  of  a  novice  in 
Gospel  translation;  for,  from  what  we  are  able  to  ascertain  at 
present,  we  judge  that  the  weak  form  of  heofon  is  late,  and  there- 
fore to  be  looked  for  in  an  author's  later  rather  than  in  his 
earlier  compositions  if  to  be  looked  for  only  in  one  of  these 
divisions.  As  to  the  discrepancies  in  number  between  heofon  in 
the  translation  and  ccelum  in  the  original,  it  is  difficult  to  imag- 
ine how  a  translator  could  be  so  exact  122  out  of  133  opportu- 
nities and  then  negligent  15  out  of  19  times.  Moreover,  it  will 
be  observed  that  in  John  the  plural  is  used  for  the  singular  15 
out  of  19  times  (the  Latin  being  always  singular  in  John).  This 
might  be  explained  by  supposing  that  the  translator  had  become 
accustomed  to  writing  the  plural  in  Luke;  but  in  Luke  heofon  is 
put  in  the  plural  only  5  times,  while  it  is  in  the  singular  33 
times. 

ii.       UNDERFON,       ONFON. 

The  occurrences  of  these  synonymous  words  divide  the 
Gospels  again  into  the  three  groups — Matthew — Mark  and  Luke 
— John.  Matthew  has  both  words,  but  onfon  occurs  the  more  fre- 
quently ;  Mark  and  Luke  have  only  onfon;  and  John  again  has 
both  words,  but  underfon  occurs  22  times  while  onfon  is  found 
only  three  times. 

Here,  again,  we  find  our  known  authors  uniform  respecting 
the  employment  of  underfon  and  onfon.  In  the  Blickling  Homi- 
lies underfon  is  not  to  be  found,  while  the  occurrence  of  onfon  is 
very  frequent  (Morris  records  65  occurrences).  yElfric  uses 
underfon  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  onfon.  A  moderately  careful 
record,  based  upon  personal  reading,  shows  that  onfoti  occurs  30 
times  in  ^Elfric's  Homilies,  7  times  in  vol.  I  of  his  Lives  of 
Saints,  and  5  times  in  the  volume  by  Grein.  Alfred  uses  under- 
fon and  onfon  interchangeably,  and  with  about  equal  frequency. 


26 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 


The  following  citations  from  the  Cura  Pastoralis  will   show 
that  Alfred  regarded  the  words  as  synonymous  : 


underfon 


onfon 


p.     75:  20  suscipio    p.  267:13  percipio 


105:  24 

193:  6    accipio 

197:  25  concipio 

253:  4    recipio 

255:  12 

263:  21  accipio 

267:  3  " 


2Sb:5 

293:  3  suscipio 

301:  25  decipio 

335:  14  accipio 

367:  10,  11,  it  concipio 

369:  7    accipio 

409:  18,  22  capio 


81:  19  accipio 
85:  21  recipio 
91:  20  suscipio 
97:  2    concipio 
121:  10  suscipio 

139:  9 

145:  18  accipio 

203:  12  suscipio 


293:  25  recipio 
345:  21  percipio 
371:  21  accipio 
377:  12  percipio 
381:  5  recipio 
391:15,  15  " 
399:  30  suscipio 
429:  12  percipio 


In   the  West   Saxon   Gospels   the    record    is   strangely    as 
follows  : 


Matthew 
underfon 

10:  14        recipio 

10:  40,  40     " 

10:  40,  40     " 

10:  41,  41     " 

19:  11         capio 

25:  16,  17,  18  accipio 

25:  20,  22,  24     " 

27:  27  suscipio 


Matthew 

onfon 

1: 

20,  24 

accipio 

2: 

21 

6: 

2,  5l  l6 

recipio 

7: 

8 

accipio 

8: 

17 

" 

10: 

8,  41,  4 

x3: 

2°!   33 

18: 

5,  5 

suscipio 

ig: 

29 

accipio 

20 

9,  10,  10 

21 

34 

25 

34 

possideo 

26 

26 

accipio 

27 

6,9 

" 

28 

15 

u 

Mark  and  Luke 
underfon 
(not  found) 


John 
underfon 

1:  11,  12  recipio 
3:  11,  27  accipio 
3:  32,  33  " 
4:  45  excipio 
5:  41,  43  accipio 
5-'  43*  44 
7:  39 


13:  20,  20 
13:  20,  20 
14:  17 
16:  24 
17:8 
18:3 

20p    22 


Mark  and  Luke 


onfo 


onfon 


John 
onfon 


4:  16      accipio 

2 

26,   28 

accipio      i:  16  accipio 

4:  20      suscipio 

6 

34 

"           5:  34      " 

4: 36     ad«umo 

6 

34 

recipio    19:  30 

6: 41       accipio 

8 

13 

*t<scy;io 

9:  37>  37  recipio 

8 

40 

e:m;;io 

9-  37.  37  suscipio 

9 

5 

recipio 

10:  15       recipio 

9 

11 

excipio 

10: 30       accipio 

9 

48 

suscipio 

11:  24           " 

9 

48,  48 

recipio 

12:  2,  40       " 

9 

48,53 

" 

14:  23           " 

10 

8 

suscipio 

15:  23           " 

10: 

10 

recipio 

10 

38 

excipio 

11 

10 

accipio 

*3 

:  19,  21 

' 

15 

2,  27 

recipio 

16 

4i  9 

16 

25.  25  ( 

SC.)  " 

18 

17 

accipio 

18 

30 

recipio 

19 

6 

excipio 

19 

12,  15 

accipio 

r9 

23 

exiffo 

20 

47 

accipio 

22 

T7*  *7i 

19    " 

23 

41 

recipio 

24 

30 

accipio 

THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  27 

Comment  can  add  but  little  force  to  the  testimony  of  the 
words  heofon,  onfon  and  under/on.  Especially  does  the  almost 
exclusive  use  of  under/on  in  John  separate  that  Gospel  not  only 
from  Mark  and  Luke,  but  also  from  Matthew.  The  entire  ab- 
sence of  under/on  in  Mark  and  Luke  gives  moral  certainty  that 
they  are  not  by  the  translator  of  John.  It  is  perhaps  more  re- 
markable than  noteworthy  that  the  beginning  and  end  (which 
Professor  Skeat  has  quoted)  of  the  homily  inserted  between 
Mark  and  Luke  in  the  Corpus  MS.  reveal  the  alien  character  of 
the  homily  by  the  use  of  the  weak  form  of  heofon  and  by  the 
use  of  under/on  twice:  M(en)  j>a  l(eofestan).  Her 
on  gins  b(se  t)  halie  g(e)writ  \>  e  co(m)  fra(m)  heofe- 
nan  into  hierusale(m)  ...and  se  be  underfeh-8 
witigan  on  j>  ae  s  witigan  nam  an  he  underfeh-g  b  se  s 
witigan  mede  (cf.  Skeat's  Pref.  to  Mk.,  p.  v).  * 

*  The  Rushworth  Gospels  do  not  contain  underfon  ;  but  the  Lindisfarne 
Jn.  4:  45  has  underfengon  added  after  genomun  in  glossing  exceperunt. 

iii.        p/ET     HE     WOLDE,     ETC. 

In  direct  confirmation  of  the  testimony  of  heofon,  underfon 
and  onfon,  is  the  use  of  willan  (occasional  in  Matthew,  wanting 
in  Mark  and  Luke,  but  frequent  in  John)  after  the  final  conjunc- 
tion \>  se  t  in  translating  Latin  infinitives  of  purpose,  and  sub- 
junctives after  final  ut,  when  the  leading  verb  is  in  an  historical 
tense.  There  is  probably  not  a  sample  of  this  use  of  willan  in 
the  works  of  Alfred  and  ^Elfric  which  are  quoted  in  this  paper ; 
though  final  clauses  depending  on  a  past  tense  are  especially 
frequent  in  the  Orosius.  *Magan*/notan  and  sculan,  however,  are  at 
times  introduced  into  such  clauses,  while  sculan  and  willan  are 
freely  used  to  translate  the  Latin  future. 

In  the  quotations  given  below,  the  passages  from  Jn.  4:  7, 
8  are  introduced,  though  they  are  not  exact  specimens  of  the 
point  in  illustration;  but  they  are  unparalleled  in  the  other  Gos- 
pels and  show  the  translator's  perplexity  in  trying  to  bring  out 
most  clearly  the  full  meaning  of  the  Latin  final  infinitive. 

Mt.  22:  11:  Da  eode  se  cyning  in  b(set)  he  wolde  geseon:  in- 
trauit  autem  rex  ut  uideret. 


28  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Mt.  28:  1:  com  seo  magdalenisce  maria  (and)  seo  o$er  maria 
p(aet)  hig  wo/don  geseon  pa  byrgene:  uenit  maria  magdalense  et 
altera  maria  uidere  sepulchrum. 

Mk.  16:  1:  [hi]  bohton  wyrt-gemang  p(5et)  hi  comon  (and) 
hine  smyredon:  emerunt  aromata  ut  unientes  ungerent  eum. 

Jn.  4:  7:  pa  com  paer  an  wif  of  samaria  wolde  wseter  feccan: 
uenit  mulier  de  samaria  haurire  aquam. 

Jn.  4:  8:  His  leorning-cnihtas  ferdon  Pa  to  Psere  ceastre 
woldon  hi(m)  mete  bicgan:  discipuli  enim  eius  abierant  in 
ciuitate(m)  ut  cibos  emerent. 

Jn.  11:  19:  Manega  .  .  .  comon  .  .  .  b(get)  hig  woldon  hi 
frefrian:  multi  .  .  .  uenerant  .   .  .  ut  consolarentur  eas. 

Jn.  n:  55:  manega  foron  .  .  .  p(aet)  hig  woldon  hig  sylfe 
gehalgian:  ascenderunt  multi  .  .  .   ut  sanctificarent  se  ipsos. 

Jn.  12:  9:  hig  comon  .  .  .  p(aet)  hig  woldon  geseon  ladzaru(m): 
uenerunt  ...     ut  lazarum  uiderent. 

Jn.  12:  20:  }>e  foron  p(£et)  hig  woldon  hi  gebiddan:  qui  ascen- 
derant  ut  adorarent. 

Blick.  Homl.,  p.  33:  12,  13:  Nis  p(aet)  to  wundrigenne  peah 
pe  he  wsere  costod,  se  to  pon  com  p(ast)  he  acweald  beon  wolde. 


Mt.  22:  15:  Da  ongunnon  pa  pharisei  rsedan  p(aet)  hig  woldon 
pone  hselend  on  hys  spraece  befon:  Tunc  abeuntes  pharisaei  con- 
silium inierunt  ut  caperent  eum  in  sermone. 

Mt.  26:  4:  (and)  hig  hasfdon  mycel  ge-mot  J>(set)  hig  woldon 
bone  haelend  mid  (MS.  mit)  facne  besyrwan  (and)  ofslean  :  et 
consilium  fecerunt  ut  i(esu)m  dolo  tenerent  et  occiderent. 

Mk.  14:  1:  )>a  sohton  \>a.  heah-sacerdas  (and)  f>a  boceras  hu 
hi  hine  mid  facne  namon  (and)  of-slogon:  Et  quaerebant  summi 
sacerdotes  et  scribae  quomodo  eum  dolo  tenerent  et  occiderent. 

Lk.  22:  2:  (and)  para  sacerda  ealdras  (and)  >a  boceras 
smeadon  hu  hig  hine  forspildon:  Et  quaerebant  principes  sacer- 
dotu(m)  et  scribae  quomodo  eum  interficerent. 

Mt.  26:  16:  hesmeade  geornlice  p(aet)  he  hyne  wolde be\sew an: 
quaerebat  oportunitatem  ut  eum  traderet. 

Mt.  27:  7:  Hig  worhton  pa  gemot  (and)  smeadon  hu  hig 
sceoldon  Pses  hselendes  wur'S  ateon:  consilio  autem  inito. 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  2() 

Mk.  3:  6:  pa  pharisei  .  .  .  beahtedonongen  hine.  hu  hi  hine 
fordon  mihton:  pharisaei  .  .  .  consilium  faciebant  aduersus  eum 
quomodo  eum  perderent. 

Lk.  19:  47:  [hi]  smeadon  hu  hig  hine  fordon  mihton*:  quae- 
rebant  ilium  perdere. 

Mk.  14:  11:  he  smeade  he  hu  hine  digellice  sealde:  querebat 
quomodo  ilium  oportune  traderet. 

Lk.  22:  6:  he  sohte  hu  he  ea^elicust  hine  .  .  .  gesealde: 
quaerebat  oportunitatem  ut  traderet  ilium. 

Jn.  10:39:  Hig  smeadon  witodlice  embe  b(set)  hig  tvoldon 
hine  gefon:  Quaerebant  ergo  eum  perdere. 

Jn.  11:8:  nu  )>a  iudeas  sohton  'Se  b(ast)hig  woldon  \>e  haenan: 
nunc  quaerebant  te  lapidare  iudaei. 

Jn.  11:  53:  hig  bohton  b(aet)  hi  woldon  hyne  ofslean:  cogi- 
tauerunt  ut  interficerent  eum. 

Jn.  12:  10:  [hi]  bohton  f>(aet)  hig  woldon  lazaru(m)  ofslean: 
cogitauerunt  .   .  .   ut  et  lazarum  interficerent. 

Blick.  Homl.,  p.  77:  7,  8:  Pa  ealdormen  bara  sacerda  bohtan 
)>(aet)  hie  woldan  Lazarum  ofslean. 


Jn.  7:  32:  oa  ealdras  (and)  ^a  pharisei  sendon  hyra  benas 
b(set)  hig  woldon  hine  gefon:  Et  miserunt  principes  et  pharisaei 
ministros  ut  appraehenderunt  eum. 

Mk.  12:  13:  pa  sendon  hi  to  hi(m)  sume  .  .  .  )>(aet)  hi  be- 
fengon  hine  on  his  worde:  Et  mittunt  ad  eum  quosdam  .  .  .  ut 
eum  caperent  in  uerbo. 

Lk.  20:  20:  Da  sendun  hig  mid  searwu(m)  \>a.  "Se  riht-wise 
leton  b(set)  hig  hine  gescyldgudun  (and)  b(aet)  hig  hine  geseal- 
don:  Et  obseruantes  miserunt  insidiatores  qui  se  iustos  simu- 
larent  ut  caperent  eum  in  sermone  et  traderent  eum. 


Jn.  8:  59:  hig  namon  stanas  to  l>a(m)  t>(aet)  hig  ivoldon  hyne 
torfian:  tulerunt  ergo  lapides  ut  iacerent  in  eum. 

Jn.  10:  31:  Da  iudeas  namon  stanas  p(aet)  hig  woldon  hyne 
torfian:  sustulerunt  lapides  iudaei  ut  lapidarent  eum. 


*Note  the  common  phraseology  of  Mark  and  Luke. 


30  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Jn.  ii :  51,  52:  he  witgode  h(set)  se  hselend  sceolde  sweltan 
.  .  .  h(ast)  he  wolde  gesomnian  togaedere  godes  beam:  prophe- 
tauit  quia  i(esu)s  moriturus  erat  .  .  .  ut  filios  d(e)i  .  .  .  congre- 
garet  in  unum. 


The  following  quotations  are  remotely  akin  to  the  preced- 
ing and  are  given  for  the  sake  of  completeness: 

Mt.  25:  10:  Witodlice  }>a  hig  ferdun  (and)  woldon  bycgean: 
dum  autem  irent  emere.  (See  Jn.  4:  7,  8,  cited  above;  also  Jn. 
14:  2). 

Mt.  27:  15:  Hig  hsefdon  heo(m)  to  ge-wunan  to  heora  sym- 
bel-dsege  l>(set)  se  dema  sceolde  forgyfan  )>a(m)  folce  senne  for- 
wyrhtne  mann:  Per  diem  autem  sollemnem  consueuerat  praeses 
dimittere  populo  unum  uinctum. 

Mk.  15:  6:  On  symmel-dsege  wses  his  gewuna  \>(set)  he  hi(m) 
for-geafe  senne  gebundenne:  Per  diem  autem  festum  dimittere 
solebat  illis  unum  ex  uinctis. 

Jn.  4:  4:  hi(m)  g(e)byrode  J>(set)  he  sceolde  faran:  Oportebat 
autem  eum  transire. 

Jn.  5:  27:  he  .  .  .  sealde  hi(m)  anweald  j>(set)  he  moste 
deman:  potestatem  dedit  ei  et  iudicium  facere. 

Jn.  7:1:  J>a  iudeas  hine  sohton  (and)  woldon  hyne  ofslean: 
quaerebant  eu(m)  iudaei  interficere. 

Jn.  9:39:  Ic  com  on  bysne  middan-eard  to  demenne  \>(xt)  j>a 
sceolon  geseon.  \>e  ne  g(e)seoS:  in  iudicium  ego  in  hunc  mundum 
ueni  ut  qui  non  uident  uideant. 

Jn.  11:  57;  f>a  bisceopas  (and)  >a  pharisei  hsefdon  beboden 
gif  hwa  wiste  hwar  he  waere  J>(aet)  he  hyt  cydde  )>(aet)  hig  million 
hine  niman:  dederant  autem  pontifices  et  pharisaei  mandatum  ut 
si  quis  cognouerit  ubi  sit  indicet  ut  appraehendant  eum. 

Jn.  12:5:  Hwi  ne  sealde  heo  >as  sealfe:  .  .  .  t>(set)  man 
mihte  syllan  |,earfon:  quare  hoc  ungentum  non  uenit  .  .  .  et 
datum  est  egenis  ?     (See  Mt.  26:  8,  9;  Mk.  14:  4,  5). 

Jn.  19:  38:  iosep  .  .  .  bsed  pilatus  J>(aet)  He  moste  niman  j>aes 
haslendes  lichaman:  rogauit  pilatum  ioseph  .  .  .  ut  tolleret 
corpus  i(es)u. 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  3 1 

Jn.  20:  9:  hit  gebyrede  j>(aet)  he  sceolde  fram  deaSe  arisan: 
oporteret  eum  a  mortuis  resurgere.* 

To  appreciate  fully  this  remarkable  usage  of  willan,  the 
reader  should  not  only  consider  carefully  the  preceding  quotations, 
but  also  read  through  Mark  or  Luke  and  then  John.  The  method 
of  expressing  past  purpose  in  John  is  so  strongly  contrasted 
with  the  method  in  Mark  and  Luke,  that  it  seems  impossible 
for  anyone  to  read  these  Gospels  consecutively  or  otherwise 
and  fail  to  observe  the  contrast. 


IV.       f/ERA,     pARA,    ETC. 

Variation  in  the  use  of  the  forms  paera,  }>ara,  baer,  bar, 
hwser,  hwar  may  be  due  to  scribal  caprice  and  indicate 
merely  that  some  ancestral  MS.  was  executed  by  several  scribes; 
but  the  variation  is  uniform  in  the  Corpus,  Bodley,  and  Cotton 
MSS.,  tallying  exactly  with  what  we  have  already  found  separat- 
ing the  Gospels  into  the  groups — Matthew — Mark  and  Luke — 
John — and  is,  therefore,  probably  to  be  considered  a  dialectic 
variation,  pointing  to  composite  authorship. 


*If  any  one  desires  to  examine  all  the  cases  where  *magan,  *motan,  sculan, 
or  willan  is  introduced  into  the  West  Saxon  text  without  authority  from  the 
Latin  original,  let  him  consult  the  following  references,  in  addition  to  what  has 
been  above  quoted: 

Mt.  8:  25;  11:  3;  12:  26;  13:  28;  16:  25;  18:  21;  20:  10;  24:  42,  43,  43,  44; 
26:  5,  54,  60;  27:  49. 

Mk.  4:  13;  6:  23;  10:  15. 

Lk.  7:  19,  20;  S:  27;  9:  53;  10:  24;  12:  39;  14:  19,  31,  32;  19:  4;  21:  14, 
21;   23:  14;  24:  28. 

Jn.  4:  35;  6:  6,  15,  21,  64;  7:  35,  35,  39;  8:  5;  10:32;  11:  S,  n;  12:19, 
33;   13:  T,  6,  11,  27;  14:  2,  22;    15:  4,  20;    17:  20;    19:  15;   21:  3,  3,  19,  21,  25. 

Mk.  10:  15;  Lk.  21:  14,  21;  24:  28;  etc.,  perhaps  do  not  properly  belong  to 
this  list. 


3* 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 


Matthew  Mark  and  Luke 

Gen.  pi.  of  se         Gen.  pi.  of  se      Gen.  pi.  of  se 


p  ae  r  a 


para 


para 


2:  4 

1 

:  44 

1:  ii  4,  71 

3:  7>  7)  !° 

2: 

26 

3:  2 

5:  20,  28 

6: 

43* 

44 

4:  26 

7:  8,  21,  24,  26 

7 

:  27, 

,  28 

5:  9 

10:  2 

12: 

23) 

43 

6:  47 

13:  r9>  49 

Pc 

10:  36 

14:  20,  21 

era 

11:  4,  10 

16:  3,  9,  10,  14,  21 

11: 

18 

13:  1 

20:  18 

14:  24 

21:845 

'9=  47. 

22:  28 

20:  1,  19,  39 

23:  30,  31 

22:  2,  4,  50,  66 

24:  8,  29 

23:  10,  13 

25:  19,  29 

p  32  r  a 

26:  3,  3,  14,  47 

26:  51,  51,  56 

22:  54 

26:  57,58,  59,60 

26:  62,  63,  65 

27:  1,  3,  6,  12 

27:  20,  41,  62 

28:  11 

para 

21:  12,  12,  15 

21:  23,  31,  34 

John 

Gen.  pi. 

of  se 

para 

p  ae  r  e 

2: 15 
3: 15. 

4:  i3> 
6:  71 
11:  19, 
12:  9, 

13:28 

20 
14 

26, 
10, 

45 
46 

fi:  45 

p  33  r  a 
7:  i3>  48,  48 

pas  r  e 

10:  32 

p  33  r  a 

15:  2 
20:  23 

12:  2,  42 
13:  23 

18:  9, 12,  22, 37 
19: 12,  20,  42 
j>  ae  r  e 

*9-  34)  38 

p  33  r  a 

20:  19, 19,  23,25 
p  ae  re 
20:  25 
p  aer  a 
21:  2,  6,  11,  12 

Matthew  Mark  and  Luke 

Adverb  Adverb  Adverb 


John 


p  33  r 

par 

par 

2:  9)  J3)  *5 

1:  35,  38 

2:6 

3:  16 

2:  4,  6 

4:  16, 17, 

31 

4:  20 

3:  !,  31 

5: 12,  29 

5:  23,  24,  37 

4:  5.  15 

6:  12 

6:  19,  19,  20, 

21) 

21 

5:  ")  14 

,  40 

7:  12,  12, 

49 

33 

6:  5,  10, 

46,  53) 

55     8:  32,  33, 

35)  56 

7:  25,  25,  27 

8:9 

9:  4,  14, 

'7 

8:  12,  26,  30, 

32 

9:  44,  46,  48 

10:  6,  6 

10:  11,  20 

11:  2,  5,  1 

3.  13 

11:  26 

12:  10,  45,  46 

13:  14 

12:  34)  34 

13:  2,  5,  42,  50,  58 

14:  3)  47) 

69 

13:   I,  II,  ! 

22,  28 

i4:  23)  23 

para 

14:  2 

15:  29,  38 

x4:  '5 

15:  13 

18:  20,  20 

par 

17:  23 

19:  2 
20:  10 

15:  35.  39< 
16:  7 

p  ae  r 

46 

19:  2 
2i:  21 

21:  33 

22:  11,  55 

22:  11,  11,  13 

para 

24:  23,  51 

13:  21 

22:  12 

25:  24,  24,  26, 

26, 

3° 

16:  6 

par 

26:  7,  57,  71,  73 

27:  35.  47)  48 

23:  33-  47 

27:  5i)  54)  55) 

6l 

24:  12,  14 
P  33> 

28:  2,  2,  7,  10, 

II, 

16, 

17 

13:  25 

par 

18:37 

6:  20 

22:  49 

21:  9,  9,  17 

Adverb 


p  se  r 

1:  24,  28 

2:  1 

3:  22,  23 

4:  6,  7,  27,  40,  46 

p  33  r  a 
4:  40 

p  ae  r 

5:  5)  6,  13 

6;  10,  22,  62 

8:9 

11:  54.  56 
12:  2,  9,  26,  26,  29 
14:  3 
18:  1,  16 
19:  18,  19,  20 
20:  12,  19 
21:  9,  18 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  33 


Matthew 

Mark  and 

Luke 

John 

Adverb 

Adverb 

Adverb 

Adverb 

Adverb 

h  w  ae  r 

h  w  a  r 

h  w  a  r 

h  w  a  r 

h  w  se  r 

2;  2,  4 

6:56 

8:  25 

1:  38.  39 

6:s 

8:  20 

14:  9,  14,  14 

9:  6,  58 

7:  11 

8:  10 

24:  28 

15:  47 

17:  37.  37 

8:  19 

26: 13,  17 

16:  20 

22:  9,  n 

9:   12 

h  w  a  r 

hwaer 

hwaer 

n:  34.  57 

15:  33 

9:  18 

17:  17 

20:    2,    13,    ! 

14, 15 

Under  the  supposition  that  the  authorship  of  these  Gos- 
pels is  composite,  the  seemingly  inexplicable  irregularity  in  the 
use  of  the  forms  baera,  l>ara,  etc.,  becomes  a  perfect  harmony 
and  a  convincing  testimony,  disturbed  only  by  the  six  occurrences 
of  bar  a  as  a  gen.  pi.  and  the  two  occurrences  of  the  adverbial 
form  bar  in  Mt.  21,  which  ought  perhaps  to  be  regarded  as 
indicating  merely  the  presence  of  a  "  different  and  conforming 
hand"  in  an  ancestral  MS. 

The  five  distributed  occurrences  of  baere  as  a  gen.  pi.  in 
John  are  full  of  significance.  They  especially  point  out  the 
probable  accuracy  of  the  Corpus  scribe  in  comparison  with  the 
scribes  of  the  Bodley,  Cotton,  and  Cambridge  MSS.  The  read- 
ings of  these  MSS.  are  : 
Corpus  MS. 

Jn.  6:45$aere;  Bodley,  Cambridge,  baera;  Cotton,  "S  se  r  a. 
10:  32  baere;  Bodley,  Cotton,  b  sere;  Cambridge,  b  ae  r  a. 

19:  34  baere;    Bodley,  Cambridge,  baera;  Cotton, . 

19:  38  b  ae  r  e  ;  Bodley,  b  ae  r  e  ;  Cambridge,  b  ae r  a  ;    Cot- 
ton,   . 

20:  25«aere;  Bodley, ;  Cambridge,  3 ae r e  ;  Cotton, 

baera. 
The  appearance  of  the  rare  adverbial  form  ba  ra  in  Mk.  14: 
15  and  Lk.  22:  12  is  noteworthy.  The  form  is  possibly  more 
emphatic  than  bar.  Professor  Bright  in  his  edition  of  Luke  has 
substituted  bar  for  bara  in  Lk.  22:  12.  The  passage  is  par- 
allel with  the  passage  in  Mark  containing  bara  as  an  adverb. 
All  the  MSS.  have  bara  in  both  passages,  excepting  that  the 
Hatton  MS.  has  bare  in  Mk.  14:  15.  Elsewhere  in  Mark  and 
Luke  the  form  used  is  b  a  r.  In  view  of  all  these  facts,  ought  not 
the  employment  of  bara  instead  of   bar   in  these  two  parallel 


34 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 


passages  to  be  regarded  as  intentional  ?  To  whatever  cause 
these  two  occurrences  may  be  due,  they  link  the  two  texts  at 
these  two  points  inseparably  together.* 

v.      WITODL1CE. 

The  Northumbrian  and  Old  Mercian  Gospels,  the  West 
Saxon  Matthew  and  John,  and  ^Elfric's  translations  from  the  Old 
Testament,  consulted  in  any  portion,  will  show  that  wi  tod  lice 
and  s  o  $1  i  c  e  had  little  if  any  difference  in  meaning  in  the  minds 
of  the  translators.  In  the  West  Saxon  Mark  and  Luke,  however, 
a  distinction  seems  evidently  to  have  been  made. 

All 'the  occurrences  of  witodlice  and  so$lice  in  the 
West  Saxon  Gospels  have  been  carefully  collected,  and  the  Latin 
original  has  in  each  case  been  noted  for  use  in  this  investigation; 
but  the  records  are  too  bulky  to  be  printed  in  full.  The  point 
most  deserving  of  attention  is  the  use  of  witodlice  interchange- 
ably with  so  8  1  ice  as  a  translation  of  autem.  This  is  frequent 
in  Matthew  and  John,  but  occurs  only  once  in  Mark  and  once  in 
Luke. 


Matthew 

Mark 

Luke 

John 

Witodlice 

Witoddce 

Witodlice 

Witodlice 

=autem 

=autem 

=autem 

=autem 

i:  21 

13:  31 

5:  15 

3:  21 

3=  4 

4=  39 

8:  10,  12,  33 

8:  35,  45,  50 

9:  16 

11:  1 

14:  24 

16:  7 

15:38 

17:  20,  25 

16:  3,  J3 

18:  2,  14,  18,  36,  40 

19:  23 

19:  9,  19,  38,  41 

21:  8,  13,  15,  32, 

38 

20:  1,  4,  11.  24,  31 

22:  14,  25 

21:  4,  18,  19,  25 

23:  12 

24:  13.  37 

25:  6,  10,  18,  31 

26:  5,  26,  29,  32, 

59 

27:  1.  39,  45.  54, 

55,  62 

28:  4,  17 

It  should  be  remarked  that  the  usage  in  Matthew  respect- 
ing witodlice  and  s  o  8  1  i  c  e  as  equivalents  of  autem  is  ex- 


*Here  we  would  call  attention  to  the  possible  advantage  of  permitting  a 
well-supported  text  to  remain  unchanged.  There  is  no  telling  what  use  a  bright- 
eyed  pupil  may  some  day  make  of  an  unusual  reading.  Hence  it  is  best  to  let 
an  odd  reading  remain  in  the  text  where  it  will  be  likely  to  be  observed. 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  35 

tremely  variable.  In  the  first  half  of  that  Gospel  the  use  of 
so  Slice  is  excessive,  particularly  from  the  fifth  to  the  thir- 
teenth chapter  inclusive.  The  irregularity,  as  we  have  before 
intimated,  probably  indicates  only  the  natural  change  in  the 
translator  as  he  becomes  familiar  with  his  task. 

vi.     H  a  n  a,  c  o  c  c. 

If  the  history  of  these  words  on  English  soil  could  be  ascer- 
tained, it  would  probably  be  found  to  reveal  a  long  contest  be- 
tween them  whereby  hana  was  ultimately  driven  from  the  realm. 
The  scanty  traces  of  the  history  that  we  do  possess  indicate 
that  hana  did  not  surrender  all  the  territory  at  once,  and 
probably  the  two  contestants  occupied  some  localities  for  a 
time  in  common.  The  Gothic  Gospels,  the  Northumbrian 
Gospels  and  the  Old  Mercian  Matthew  have  hana  only.  In 
Sweet's  glossary  to  his  "  Oldest  English  Texts"  (p.  465),  -hana 
in  composition  is  cited  8  times;  while  cocc  is  not  cited  at  all. 
.^Elfric  uses  hana  in  relating  Peter's  denial  (Th.  ^Elf.  II,  pp.  246: 
4;  248:  33).  Alfred  has  cocc  in  two  passages  of  serious  discourse 
(Sw.  Alf.  C.  P.,  pp.  459:  29,  31,  32;  461:  1,  12).  When  we  turn 
to  the  West  Saxon  Gospels,  we  find  the  two  words  grouping  the 
Gospels  just  as,  at  this  stage  of  our  inquiry,  might  be  expected: 

Matthew  Mark        and         Luke  John 

26:  34  cocc  14:  30,  68  hana      22:  34         hana  13:  38  cocc 

26:  74,  75     "  14:  72,  72     "  22:  60,  61       "  18:  27  " 

This  remarkable  variation  in  the  translation  of  the  Latin 
gallus  presumably  indicates  that  the  time  or  place  of  the  transla- 
tion of  the  Matthew  and  the  John  was  not  the  same  as  that  of 
the  Mark  and  Luke.* 

Professor  Skeat  has  noted  that  the  Hatton  MS.  has  coc  for 
hana  in  Lk.  22:  60.  The  fact,  however,  is  that  the  Hatton  MS. 
does  not  use  hana  at  all,  thus  indicating  that  hana  had  become 
obsolete,  or  had  never  existed,  in  the  scribe's  vocabulary. 


*The  occurrence  of  hancred  in  Mt.  14:  25  doubtless  indicates  a  survival  in 
composition  of  an  obsolete  or  obsolescent  word,  just  as  does  our  use  of  poll-tax, 
poll-evil,  spider-wort,  etc. 


36  THE   AUTHORSHIP   OF 

Vii.       STRIDOR    DENTIUM. 

This  phrase  occurs  six  times  in  the  Latin  of  Matthew  and 
once  in  Luke.  As  usual,  the  translation  in  Luke  differs  from 
that  in  Matthew: 

Matthew  Luke 

8:12        to)>a  gristbitung.  13:28   to)>a   gryst-lung. 

13:42,50     " 
22:  13 
24:  51 
25:30 

viii.      F  U  L  G  O  R. 

The  translation  of  this  word  is  worthy  of  attention, — as  the 
word  used  in  Luke  (lig-rtzsc)  is  not  the  usual  West  Saxon  term 
for  lightning.  In  Matthew  ligyt  is  used,  and  it  is  employed  exclus- 
ively by  yElfric  in  the  works  cited  in  this  paper  (Th.  MM.  I,  pp. 
222:31,32;  504:30;  II,  pp.  184:  5;  196:24;  202:22,27;  Sk. 
yElf.  I,  p.  114:  22;  Grein's  MM.,  Ex.  9:  23;  19:  16;  Deut.  32:  41; 
Job,  p.  265:  1). 

Matthew  Luke 

24:  27  txgyt  10:  18  lig-rczsc 

28;    3     "  11:36      " 

17:  24       " 

ix.       C  EN  T  U  RI  O. 

The  rendering  of  this  word  separates  Matthew  from  Mark 
and  Luke. 

Matthew.  Mark         and         Luke. 

8:  5,  8,  13  hundredes  ealdor  15:  39,  44  hundred-man     7:  2,  6  hundred-man 

27:  54  (Centori)     "  "  23:  47  " 

Hundredes  ealdor  occurs  in  Th.  ^lf.  I,  pp.  126:  5,  8,  21,  23; 
128:  19,  20,  30;  132:  31;  134:  1;  II,  pp.  258:  7,  33;  418:  33;  Sk. 
MM.  I,  p.  226:  26;  484:  34;  486:  1.  In  three  particular  in- 
stances, however,  (Grein's  ^Elf.,  Ex.  18:  21,  25;  Deut.  1:  15), 
hundredman  is  used  instead  of  hundredes  ealdor,  doubtless  on 
account  of  the  influence  of  other  words  in  the  context  (see  pas- 
sages cited).  This  slight  irregularity  in  ^lfric's  usage  does 
not  explain  the  case  in  the  Gospels.     The  passages  in  Matthew 


THE   WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  37 

are  widely  separated,  and  so  likewise  are  those  in  Luke.  The  repe- 
tition in  Mt.  27:  54  of  hundredes  ealdor  from  the  eighth  chapter 
would  lead  us  to  expect  the  same  phrase  in  Mark  and  Luke  if 
the  translator  were  the  same. 

X.       VOX     CLAMANTIS. 

This  phrase  seems  to  have  troubled  translators.  The  best 
MSS.  of  yElfric  have  Clypiende  stemn  (Sk.  ^Elf.  I,  p.  332:  27).  A 
scribe  might  easily  corrupt  the  true  rendering  clypiendes  stemn 
into  clypiende  stemn.  The  corpus  scribe  ^Elfric,  however,  favored 
the  present  inquiry  and  confirmed  his  good  reputation  for  accur- 
acy when  he  wrote: 

Matthew  Mark        and  Luke  John 

3  '•  3  Clypiendes  stefn   1 :  3  clypiende  stefn  3 :  4  Clypiende  stefen   1:23  clypiendes  stefn 

xi.     UPPAN   (on-uppan). 

The  use  of  uppan  in  Mt.  24:  2,  3,  for  which  Mark  and  Luke 
in  the  parallel  passages  (Mk.  13:  2,  3  ;  Lk.  19:  44;  21:  6)  have 
ofer  or  on,  confirmed  my  conviction  that  the  subject  of  the  author- 
ship of  these  Gospels  was  worthy  of  an  investigation.  Search 
revealed  the  significant  fact  that  Matthew  has  uppan  [on-uppan) 
15  times  and  John  6  times,  where  Mark  and  Luke,  if  represented, 
regularly  have  ofer  or  on  (once  on-u/an).  In  these  cases  the 
original  force  of  upp-  is  lost;  and  the  compound  expresses  simply 
super-position  Hence  pa  astigon  hig  uppan  J>eene  hrof 
(Lk.  5:  19)  and  he.  .  .  stah  up  on  an  treow  (Lk.  19:  4) 
cannot  be  cited  as  parallels  to  the  citations  from  Matthew  and 
John.  The  word  (a)stigan  is  very  frequently  accompanied  with 
a  distinguishing  adverb  to  define  the  direction:  ne  stih'8  he 
nySer  (Lk.  17:  31).  Furthermore,  (a)stigan  up(p)  is  very  fre- 
quent, and  often  followed  by  to  (see  Th.  3L\i,  I,  pp.  22:  20;  182: 
29;  II,  pp.  16:  31;  196:  32;  384:  32;  596:  14,  etc.,  etc.).  Yet  the 
up(p)  and  the  to  are  always  written  separately,  as  should  be  the 
up(p)  and  the  an  (on)  when  the  up(p)  has  its  original  force,  as  in 
the  cases  just  cited  from  Luke. 

While  the  reader  is  examining  the  following  quotations,  he 
would  do  well  to  consult  the  Northumbrian  and  Old   Mercian 


159142 


38  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Gospels,  which  are  in  remarkable  harmony  with  the  West  Saxon 
of  Mark  and  Luke  : 

Mt.  5:  14:  seo  ceaster  .  .  .  J>e  by'5  uppan  miint  aset:  ciuitas 
.  .   .  supra  monte  posita. 

Mt.  9:  18:  sete  Hne  hand  uppan  hig:  impone  manu(m)  super 
earn. 

Mt.  10:  27:  J>(aet)  ge  on  eare  gehyra'S  bodiab  uppan  hrofu(m): 
quod  in  aure  auditis  praedicate  sup(er)  tecta 

Lk.  12:  3:  J>aet  ge  on  earum  spraecu(n)  .  .  .  bis  on  hrofum 
bodud:  quod  in  aurem  locuti  estis  .   .  .  praedicabitur  in  tectis. 

Mt.  21:5:  J>in  cyning  .  .  .  rit  uppan  tamre  assene:  rex  tuus 
.  .   .  sedens  super  asina(m). 

Mk.  11:  2:  ofer  >aene  nan  man  gyt  ne  seet:  super  quem  nemo 
athuc  hominum  sedit. 

Lk.  19:  30:  on  ba(m)  nan  man  gyt  ne  seet  :  cui  nemo  um- 
quam  hominum  sedit. 

Jn.  12:  14:  se  hselend  .  .  .  rad  on-uppan  >a(m):  i(esu)s  .  .  . 
sedit  super  eum. 

Jn.  12:  15:  Hn  cing  cyml>  uppan  assan  folan  sittende  :  rex 
tuus  uenit  sedens  super  pullum  asine. 

Mt.  21:7:  [hi]  ledon  hyra  reaf  uppan  hig.  (and)  setton  hyne 
an-uppan  :  inposuerunt  super  eis  uestimenta  sua  et  eum  desuper 
sedere  fecerunt. 

Mk.  11:7:  hi  hyra  reaf  on  a-ledon  (and)  he  on  seet:  inponunt 
ill!  uestimenta  sua  et  sedit  super  eum. 

Lk.  19:  35:  hig  .  .  .  hyra  reaf  wurpon  ofer  >aene  folan.  (and) 
baene  haelend  on-ufan  setton  :  iactantes  uestimenta  sua  supra 
pullum  inposuerunt  i(esu)m. 

Mt.  21:  44:  se\>e  fyll>  uppan  bysne  stan  :  qui  ceciderit  super 
lapidem  istum. 

Lk.  20:  18:  be  (y\\>  ofer  t>aene  stan:  qui  ceciderit  supra  ilium 
lapide(m). 

Mt.  21 :  44:  Se  he  onuppan  fyltS:  super  quem  .  .   .  ceciderit. 

Lk.  20:  18:  ofer  >aene  \>&  he  fyrS:  supra  quem  autem  cecid- 
erit. 

Mt.  23:  4:  Hig  .  .  .  lecgea-s  j>a  uppan  manna  exla:  inponunt 
in  umeros  hominum. 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  39 

Mt.  24:  2:  ne  br5  her  lsefed  stan  uppan  stane:  non  relinquetur 
hie  lapis  super  lapidem. 

Mk.  13:  2:  ne  bitf  her  lasfed  stan  ofer  stan:  non  relinquetur 
lapis  super  lapidem. 

Lk.  19:  44:  hig  ne  lrefafi  on  pe  stan  ofer  stane:  non  relinquent 
in  te  lapidem  super  lapide(m). 

Lk.  21:6:  ne  br$  stan  laefed  ofer  stan:  non  relinquetur 
lapis  super  lapidem. 

Mt.  24:  3:  he  saet  uppan  oliuetes  dune  :  Sedente  .  .  .  eo 
sup(er)  montem  oliueti. 

Mk.  13:  3:  hi  sseton  on  oliuetes  dune:  sederet  in  monte(m) 
oliuarum. 

Mt.  24:  17:  sepe  ys  uppan  hys  huse:  qui  in  tecto. 

Mk.  13:  15:  se  Se  is  ofer  pecene:  qui  super  tec[t]um. 

Lk.  17:  31:  se  ~8e  br$  on  pecene:  qui  fuerint  in  tecto. 

Mt.  26:  7:  seo  .  .  .  ageat  uppan  hys  heafud  :  effudit  super 
caput  ipsius. 

Mk.  14:  3:  an  wff  .  .  .  ofer  his  heafod  aget:  mulier  .  .  .ef- 
fudit super  caput  eius. 

Mt.  26:  30:  pa  ferdon  hig  uppan  oliuetes  dune:  exierunt  in 
montem  oliueti. 

Mk.  14:  26:  hi  ferdon  on  ele-bergena  munt :  exierunt  in 
montem  oliuarum. 

Lk.  22:  39:  he  ut-eode  on  psene  munt  oliuarum  p(set)  ys  ele- 
bergena:  egressus  ibat  ...  in  montem  oliuarum. 

Jn.  6:  15:  pa  fleah  he  ana  uppon  pone  munt:  Fugit  iterum  in 
monte  ipse  solus. 

Mt.  28:  2:  drihtenes  engel  .  .  .  awylte  bone  stan  (and)  saet 
paer  on-uppan:  angelus  .  .  .  d(omi)ni  .  .  .  reuoluit  lapidem  et 
sedebat  super  eum. 

Jn.  11:  38:  par  wass  an  stan  on-uppan  g(e)led:  lapis  super- 
positus  erat  ei. 

Jn.  6:  19:  pa  gesawon  hig  pone  haelend  uppan  psere  sae  gan: 
uident  i(esu)m  ambulante(m)  super  mare. 

Jn.  20:  7:  p(set)  swat-lin  pe  waes  uppan  his  heafde:  sudarium 
quod  fuerat  supra  capud  eius. 

It  should  be  remarked  that   Matthew  and  John    have  also 


40  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

ofer  and  on  ;  but  the  introduction  of  uppan  (on-uppan)  as  synony- 
mous with  on  and  ofer  marks  a  fundamental  difference  in  the 
vocabularies  of  Matthew  and  John  as  contrasted  with  Mark  and 
Luke.  The  difference  is  doubtless  due  to  locality  rather  than 
to  time;  for  Alfred  (sparingly)  and  ^Elfric  (profusely)  use  uppan 
(on-uppan)  in  the  sense  of  on  or  ofer  (see  especially  Sw.  Alf.  C.  P., 
pp.  397:  34;  399:  2,  4,  6,  10,  consulting  the  Latin  original  ;  and 
see  ^Elfric  passim,  but  particularly  Grein's  MM.,  Gen.  50:  1  ; 
Ex.  4:  9). 

The  "  restoration  "  of  the  last  seven  verses  of  Mark  in  the 
Royal  MS.  betrays  its  spurious  character  by  the  introduction  of 
uppen  (Mk.  16:  18)  in  place  of  ofer  in  the  Corpus  MS.* 

xii.        TRADO:     BEL/EWAN,     (GE)SYLLAN. 

If  the  proof  of  the  composite  authorship  of  the  West  Saxon 
Gospels  depended  solely  upon  the  evidence  of  the  varying  trans- 
lation of  trado,  the  proof  would  still  be  amply  sustained. 
Throughout  Matthew  and  John,  whenever  trado  describes  a 
manifestly  treacherous  action,  belcewan  is  used  in  the  translation. 
This  is  not  the  case  in  Mark  and  Luke,  which  regularly  have 
(ge)syllan  instead  of  belcewan.  The  only  occurrence  of 
belcewan  in  these  two  Gospels  is  in  Mk.  14:  10,  where  the  Latin 
has  prodo.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  Lindisfarne  and  Rushworth 
texts  have  belcewan  in  the  same  passage  and  there  only.  The 
fragments  of  the  Gothic  Gospels  in  representing  the  Greek 
7tapa8iSco^i  agree  almost  without  exception  with  the  usage  in 
the  West  Saxon  Matthew  and  John,  and  show  us  what  we  should 
expect  from  a  single  translator  of  the  Gospels.  Of  course,  the 
fact  that  John  agrees  with  Matthew  does  not  necessarily  mean 
that  these  two  Gospels  are  by  the  same  translator;  but  that  Mark 
and  Luke  should  differ  so  systematically  from  Matthew  and 
John  can  scarcely  admit  of  more  than  one  interpretation. 
Let  the  reader  examine  and  judge  for  himself. 

Mt.  4:  12:  >a  se  haeland  gehyrde  >(set)  iohannes  belcewed 
waes:  Cum  .   .    .  audisset  quod  iohannes  traditus  esset. 


*Another  interesting  feature  of  this  restoration  is  the  appearance  of  ge-f  tinted 
for  gefullod. 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  41 

Mk.  1:  14:  Syfi'San  iohannes  geseald  wees:  Postquam  autem 
traditus  est  iohannes. 

Gothic  Mk.  1:  14:  Ip  afar  batei  atgibans  varb  Iohannes. 

Mt.  10:4:  Iudas  scarioth  be  hyne  belcewde :  iudas  scariotes 
qui  et  tradidit  eum. 

Mt.  26:  25:  iudas  he  hyne  be-lcewde :  iudas  qui  tradidit  eum. 

Mt.  27:  3:  iudas  he  hyne  belcewde  :  iudas  qui  eum  tradidit. 

Gothic  Mt.  27:  3:  Iudas  sa galevjands  ina. 

Jn.  6:71:  be  iuda  scariobe  pes  hine  belcewde  :  iudam  simonis 
scariothis  hie  enim  erat  traditurus  eum. 

Gothic  Jn.  6:  71:  bana  Iudan  Seimonis,  Iskariotu,  sa  auk 
habaida  ina  galevjan. 

Jn.  12:4:  iudas  scarioS  be  hine  belcewde  :  iudas  scariotis  qui 
erat  eum  traditur(u)s. 

Gothic  Jn.  12:4:  Judas  Seimonis  sa  Iskariotes,  izei  skaftida 
sik  du  galevjan  ina. 

Jn.  18:2:   Iudas  be  hyne  belcewde  :  iudas  qui  tradebat  eum. 

Gothic  Jn.  18:  2:  Iudas  sa  galevjands  ina. 

Jn.  18:5:    iudas  be    hine  belcewde:  iudas  qui  tradebat  eum. 

Gothic  Jn.  18:  5:  Iudas  sa  levjands  ina. 

Mt.  10:  19:  Pon(ne)  belcewdb  syllaft  eow:  Cum  autem  tradent 
uos. 

Mk.  13:  11:  bon(ne)  hi  syllende  eow  laeba'S;  cumduxerint  uos 
tradentes. 

Mt.  24:  10:  manega  .  .  .  belcewaS  betwyx  him:  multi  .  .  . 
inuicem  tradent. 

Mt.  26:  15:  ic  hyne  behewe  eow:  ego  uobis  eum  trada(m). 

Mk.  14:  10:  p(set)  he  hine  belcewde :  ut  proderet  eum. 

Gothic  Mk.  14:  10:  ei  galevidedi  ina. 

Lk.  22:  4:  hu  he  hine  hi(m)  gesealde :  quem-ammodum  illu(m) 
traderet  eis. 

Mt.  26:  16:  b(aet)  he  hyne  wolde  belcewan :  ut  eum  traderet. 


42  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Mk.  14:  11 :  hu  he  hine  digellice  sealde  :  quomodo  ilium  opor- 
tune  traderet. 

Gothic  Mk,  14:  11:  hvaiva  gatilaba  ina galevidedi. 

Lk.  22:  6:  hu  he  ea^elicust  hine  .  .  .  gesealde  :  ut  traderet 
ilium. 

Mt.  26:  21:  an  eower  beloew'S  me:  unus  uestrum  me  traditu- 
rus  est. 

Mt.  26:  23:  Sepe  be-dyp'S  on  disce  mid  me  hys  hand  se 
me  be-lcBi£f&  :  qui  intingit  raecum  manum  in  parapside  hie  me 
tradet. 

Mk.  14:  18:  eower  an  pe  mid  me  yt  gesyfo  me:  unus  ex  uobis 
me  tradet  qui  manducat  mecum. 

Lk.  22:  21:  her  is  pses  Icewan  hand  mid  me  on  mysan  :  ecce 
manus  tradentis  me  mecum  est  in  mensa. 

Mt.  26:  24:  purh  pone  pe  byp  mannes  sunu  be-lmwed :  per 
quern  filius  hominis  traditur. 

Mk.  14:  21:  purh  pone  pe  mannes  sunu  geseald  bi'5:  per  quern 
filius  hominis  traditur. 

Lk.  22:  22:  pe  he  purh  geseald  bi'S:  per  quern  tradetur. 

Mt.  26:  46.  nu  genealaeeS  se  pe  me  bc-lmtuK:  appropinquauit 
qui  me  tradit. 

Mk.  14:  42:  nu  is  gehende  se  "Se  me  sy/'S:  ecce  qui  me  tradit 
prope  est. 

Gothic  Mk.  14:  42:  Sai,  sa  levjands  mile  atnehvida. 

Mt.  26:  48:  Se  pe  hyne  be-lmwde  sealde  heo(m)  tacn:  Qui 
autem  tradidit  eum  dedit  il lis  signum. 

Mt.  27:  1 :  p(st)  hig  hyne  deape  be-lcewdon:  ut  eum  morti 
traderent. 

Gothic  Mt.  27:  1:  ei  afdaupidedeina  ina:  qo'6te 
Oavaroodai  avrov. 

Lk.  22:  48:  mannes  sunu'  pu  mid  cosse  sylst  :  osculo  filium 
hominis  tradis  ? 

Jn.  6:  64:  hwa  hine  belcewon  wolde  :  quis  traditurus  esset 
eum. 

Gothic  Jn.  6:  64:  hvas  ist  saei  galei  v  e  ip  ina. 

Jn.  13:  2:  p(set)  he  hine  behewde:  ut  traderet  eum. 

Jn.  13:  11:  he  wiste  witodlice  hwa  hyne  sceolde  belawan  : 
sciebat  enim  quis-nam  esset  qui  traderet  eum. 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  43 

Jn.  21:  20:  Drihten.  hwaet  ys  se  «£  belsewS:  d(omi)ne 
quis  est  qui  tradit  te  ?* 

With  belcewan  we  close  the  argument.  The  consistent  and 
persistent  testimony  of  this  word  carries  conviction  with  its 
weight,  and  satisfies  the  true  spirit  of  inquiry.  If,  however,  the 
curious  reader  would  investigate  this  subject  still  further,  he  may 
be  interested  in  the  translations  of  amen  (a??ien)dico,  festuca,  hymno 
dicto,  latro,  ?iubes,  p/iantasma,  purpura,  spelunca  latronum,  sub  modio, 
terrae  motus,  etc.,  etc.;  though  doubtless  many  of  these  variations 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  allowable  to  a  single  translator.  The 
use  of  to  hwi  six  times  in  Matthew  and  not  once  in  the  other  three 
Gospels  may  be  of  interest,  particularly  as  the  phrase  is  unusual 
in  Anglo-Saxon. 

It  may  be  queried  whether  in  the  course  of  this  search  any 
facts  have  been  discovered,  which  tend  to  militate  against  the 
separation  of  the  Gospels,  on  the  basis  of  a  supposed  plurality  of 
authorship,  into  the  groups — Matthew — Mark  and  Luke — John. 


*  Trado  occurs  elsewhere  as  follows: 

Mt.  5:  25;  10:  17,  21;  11:  27;  17:  22;  18:  34;  20:  18,  19;  24:  9,  38;  25: 
14,  20,  22;  26:  2,  45,  59;  27:  2,  4,  18,  26. 

Mk.  3:  19;  7:  4,  13;  9:  31;  10:  33,  33;  13:  9,  12;  14:  41,  55;  15:  i,  io,  15. 

Lk.  1:2;  4;  6,  17;  9:  44;  10:  22;  12:  58;  iS:  32;  20:  20,  34;  21:  12,  12,  16; 
23;  25;  24:  7,  20. 

Jn.  18:  30,  35,  36;  19:  11,  16,  30. 

The  Gothic  translates  Ttapa8iScoi.ii  in  the  following  unquoted  passages  : 

Mt.  5:  25;  26:  2;  27;  2,  4,  18. 

Mk.  7:  13;  9:  31;  10:  33;  14:  41;  15:  1,  10,  15. 

Lk.  1;  2;  4:  6;  9:  44;  10:  22;  18:  32;  20:  20. 

Jn.  18:  30,  35,  36;  19:  11. 

In  these  passages  (except  as  noted  below),  the  context  does  not  show  that 
trado  (7tapaSidoojiii)  is  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  to  betray.  The  usage  of  the 
West  Saxon  Matthew  and  John  in  rendering  these  passages  differs  from  that  of 
the  Gothic  in  the  same  passages  (or  in  the  parallel  passages  in  Mark  and  Luke) 
only  in  Mt.  26:  45  (Gothic  Mk.  14:  41);  Mt.  27:  4;  Jn.  18:  36;  19:  11;  where 
the  Gothic  is  doubtless  wrong  in  Mk.  14:  41,  as  is  indicated  by  the  Gothic  in  Mk. 
9:  31;  10:  33;  Lk.  9:  44.  The  Gothic  is  evidently  wrong  in  Jn.  18:  36.  In  Mt. 
27:  4;  Jn.  19:  ii,  the  West  Saxon  version  has  probably  deviated  from  the  rule 
otherwise  observed. 


44  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

The  reply  is  that  nothing  of  moment  has  presented  itself,  but  see 
Mt.  7:  15;  10:  17;  16:  6,  12;  Mk.  8:  15;  12:  38;  Lk.  12:  1,  15; 
20:  46;  Rush.  Mt.  16:  12;  also  Mt.  17;  3;  Mk,  9:  14;  Lk.  9:  30; 
22:  4.  It  may  be  added  that  the  orthography  of  the  Corpus 
text  of  Mark  is  peculiar  in  never  having  hig  for  hi,  hyne  for  hine, 
hym  for  him,  or  -un  for  -on  as  a  termination  of  a  verb;  etc.,  etc. 
The  Corpus  scribe  has  doubtless  been  consistent  and  accurate. 
The  contrast  between  Mark  on  the  one  hand  and  Matthew,  Luke, 
and  John  on  the  other  is  explainable  by  supposing  the  introduction 
of  a  "  different  hand  "  in  Mark  in  some  ancestral  MS. 

Resura  e. — By  way  of  recapitulation,  we  have  seen  that  in 
the  West  Saxon  version  of  the  Gospels 

A.  Matthew  is  separated  from  the  three  other  Gospels 

(a)  By  the  use  (limited)  of  the  weak  form  of  heofon. 

(b)  By  the  use  (limited)  of   underfon   synonymously    with 

on/on. 

(c)  By  the  use  (occasional)  of  willan  after  )>aet  introducing 

past  purpose. 

(d)  By  the  use  (regular)  of   \>  ae  r  a,  \> se  r,    hwaer,    instead  of 

\>  a  r  a,  \>  a  r,  h  w  a  r. 

B.  Matthew  is  separated  from  Mark  and  Luke 

(e)  By  the  use  of  hundredes  ealdor  instead  of  hundredman. 

C.  Matthew  is  separated  from  Luke 

(f)  By  the  use  of  Ugyt  instead  of  ligrcesc. 

(g)  By  the  use  of  gristbitung  instead  of  grystlung. 

D.  John  is  separated  from  the  other  gospels 

(h)  By  the  use  (regular)  of  the  plural  of  heofon  where  the 

singular  should  be  expected, 
(i)  By  the  use  of  underfon  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  onfon. 
(j)  By  the  use  (excessive)  of  willan  after   J?ae  t,    introducing 

past  purpose, 
(k)  By  the  use  of  J>ara    and   )>aera,  )>ar  and  >ser,   hwar 

and    hwaer,  interchangeably. 

E.  Matthew  and  John  are  separated  from  Mark  and  Luke 
(1)  By  the  frequent  use  of  witodlice  in  translating  autem. 
(m)  By  the  use  of  cocc  instead  of  hana. 


THE    WEST    SAXON    GOSPELS.  45 

(n)  By  the  use  (frequent)  of  uppan  {on-uppan)  with  loss  of 
the  original  force  of  upp-. 

(o)  By  the  correct  translation  of  vox  clamantis. 

(p)  By  the  use  of  belcewa?i  instead  of  (ge)syllan  in  translat- 
ing trado  where  the  notion  of  treachery  is  indicated 
by  the  context. 

Finally,  in  the  evidence  presented  we  have  seen  weighty 
reasons  for  believing  that  the  authorship  of  the  West  Saxon  Gos- 
pels is  at  least  dual,  and  probably  triple;  more  explicitly,  that  the 
Matthew  is  by  one  translator,  the  Mark  and  Luke  by  another, 
the  John  by  a  third  (unless  possibly  by  the  translator  of  the 
Matthew);  that  the  translator  of  the  Matthew  and  the  translator 
of  the  John  were  probably  locally  akin,  possibly  translating  con- 
jointly; and  that  the  translator  of  the  Mark  and  Luke  was  prob- 
ably distant  from  the  locality  where  the  Matthew  and  the  John 
were  translated.  Furthermore,  in  view  of  the  agreement  of  the 
Northumbrian  version  with  the  West  Saxon  Mark  and  Luke  in 
the  exclusion  of  u?iderfon  (except  Lind.  Jn.  4:  45,  as  noted),  in 
the  use  of  hana  instead  of  cocc,  in  the  exclusion  of  uppan 
{on-uppan)  in  the  sense  of  on  or  ofer,  and  in  the  solitary  employ- 
ment of  belmwan  (Mk.  14:  10  prodo),  it  seems  not  unlikely  that 
the  Northumbrian  version  (and  the  Old  Mercian  Matthew  ?)  and 
the  West  Saxon  Mark  and  Luke  are  in  somewise  akin,  probably 
as  respects  localities  of  translation.  The  importance  of  the  fact 
that  these  versions  agree  in  the  use  of  (ge)syllan  to  translate 
trado  and  of  belcewan  to  translate  prodo,  is  emphasized  by  the 
consideration  that  "  In  those  days,  when  grammars  and  diction- 
aries were  hardly  known  or  used,  Latin  was  studied  much  more 
as  a  living  language  than  it  is  now  "  (cf.  Sw.  Alf.  C.  P.,  p.  xli). 


VITA. 

Natus  sum  Allison  Drake,  Decorae  in  republica  Iovana  a.  d. 
vm  Kalendas  Ianuarias  anno  huius  saeculi  lx. 

Litterarum  rudimentis  in  schola  universali  imbutus,  in  Colle- 
gium iuxta  Flumen  Proeliare  in  republica  Michiganensi  anno 
lxxvii  receptus  sum;  unde  post  annos  duos  Cincinnatos  me 
contuli.  Ibi  inter  officia  multifaria  operam  studiis  pertinacem 
dedi  et  Collegium  Sti.  Xaveri  frequentans,  ad  gradum  Bacca- 
laurei  in  Artibus  anno  lxxxvi,  ad  gradum  Magistri  in  Artibus 
anno  lxxxvii,  ad  gradum  Baccalaurei  in  Scientiis  anno  xc,  ex 
ordine  provectus  sum.  Omnes  quidem  professores  illius  collegi 
me  sibi  obstrinxisse  grato  animo  profiteor;  prae  ceteris  autem 
Praeses  Reverendus,  Edvardus  A.  Higgins,  S.  J.,  vir  doctissimus 
sanctissimusque,  mihi  semper  colendus  est. 

Annis  lxxxvii — xc  viri  humanissimi,  Stoddard,  Baird, 
Johnson,  studia  mea  Anglo-Saxonica,  Latina,  Graeca  in  Univer- 
sitate  Urbis  Novi  Eboraci  direxerunt,  quae  anno  xc  gradu 
Doctoris  in  Philosophia  me  adornavit. 

Post  annos  duos  in  Collegium  Columbiae  Neo-Eboracense 
receptus  Sociusque  universitatis  in  lingua  Anglo-Saxonica 
anno  xcm  factus  sum.  Hie  me  ad  gradum  Magistri  in  Artibus 
anno  eodem  provectum  docuerunt  viri  doctissimi,  clarissimi 
carissimi :  Jackson,  Price,  Matthews,  Peck,  Merriam,  Perry, 
quibus  gratiam  debitam  referre  nunquam  potero. 


CORRIGENDA. 

Page  21,  1.  i,  there  should  be  a  mark  of  acute  accent  on  "  y  "  in 

"Sy." 
Page  23,  there  should  be  a  macron  on  the  "e"  in  "se"  in  the 

quotation  from  Cook's  Sievers  in  the  foot-note. 
Page  39,  there  should  be  a  mark  of  acute  accent  on  the  "  ae  "   in 

"  sse  "  in  the  quotation  from  Jn.  6  :   19. 
Page  42,  there  should  be  a  mark  of  acute  accent   on  the  "ce"  in 

"Icewati"  in  the  quotation  from  Lk.  22  :  21. 


V 


AA    000  619  072    2 


